McCarthy directs House to open formal impeachment inquiry into Biden’s involvement in Hunters Deals

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Only under specific circumstances. The reason I remember the car was stationary was a discussion with a member on UM who was arguing that the courts might allow an exception to the hearsay rule due to the "excited utterance exception". I think this is abusing the excited utterance exception (and made that argument at the time the discussion was taking place), but it was not until later that I found out the car wasn't even moving, which scuppered the argument altogether!  

 

None, as far as I'm aware. At the time the event took place, people were arguing that it was solid evidence to be used in court (see above, re: excited utterances). Today it's just stuck in my head as another example of how the left wing mainstream media tried to paint a negative picture of Trump and how that picture didn't match reality. 

That's my point.  Whether, or not, Cassidy's testimony was hearsay is neither here nor there.  It presented the Committee with some information that was worth following up with Ornato, Engel, et al.  That line of questioning fizzled out and was unconvincing one way or the other.  But, doesn't follow that Cassidy was an agent for a Grand Dump Trump  Conspiracy.

It's a slightly interesting that there was tesimony from the SS.  They refused to testify against Clinton.

Edited September 26 by Golden Duck

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, F3SS said:

I was looking that up after he posted and there's no way excited utterance would apply here. 

Isn't it interesting to point out that testimony that wasn't presented in court isn't allowed to be presented in court.

[Gromdor]

11 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I remember one other detail that wasn't reported by the media at the time - the car was stationary. The media made it look like Trump was a reckless danger to other road users to the point that he would "lunge" - I remember that word being used in basically every article at the time - for a steering wheel. I also recall that most of the negativity was coming from the mainstream left wing media trying to use this as an attack against Trump, not conservatives trying to take away from her testimony - which is hearsay and not permitted in any court proceedings, so what matter is it what testimony she had about what happened in the car that day? 

Was there something specific you were hoping we would remember about the situation? Or am I getting this mixed up with another steering wheel incident? If your argument is that the left wing media focuses on irrelevant details for the purpose of character assassination then I actually agree with you - it was shocking but not surprising to see how the media tried to ignore one key element of the story in order to make it appear as if Trump was a danger to himself and others. But I'm not sure what the conservatives have to do with it, if the left wing media didn't bring it up I doubt the right wing media would have said something about it (or if they did they would have made sure to clarify that the car was completely stationary at the time - or they should, at least, and I see no reason why conservative media would ignore it).  

 

12 hours ago, F3SS said:

She was an aid to the chief of staff. Does the president pick aids? She testified that he told security to stand down concerning some open carrying at the rally, telling his detail that "they're not here to hurt me". Obviously you have that spun as an implication that he was totally on board with them hurting others but that's not what really happened, right? Right.

She relayed a story, supposedly told by the head of secret service about the ss limo drivers account who didn't actually say anything himself during the conversation. Rumor had it that the SS was prepared to testify that never happened. The rumor was probably true or else the J6 committe surely would've had them take the stand. If she's full of it there she's probably full of it elsewhere and so was the committee. Was it even real testimony under oath? I'm not sure it was because the game of telephone isn't admissible in the real world. It's a script. She's a hack known only for her acting debut during a surprise hearing. I'm honestly surprised she doesn't have a job on cable news but she does have a book deal which was probably what she was promised for complying. Maybe she'll call it a "I Heard it Through the Grapevine". 

As for your "more important" info about the proudboys and the oathkeepers, well, what was so groundbreaking about what she said? She heard they had weapons ( and that Trump knew and dismissed it), which was probably known by the time her episode aired. She really had nothing of substance to say at all and your point about conservative media lampooning her brave testimony is moot too. Look it up. Every media source in existence reported the same headline but it was very astute of you to know what the real story was.

Dang, you guys really do know more about the "Shiny toy" rather than the non-hearsay testimony.

Let me show you in little baby steps.

1) She testified that Trump and others were discusing the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers prior to Jan.6.  She also testitfied that multiple people (Gaetz, Perry, Gomer, etc.) requested pardons regarding their roles in Jan. 6.

2) Trumps advisor Roger Stone (the one he pardoned) has provable relations with Oath Keepers prior and during Jan. 6.   Roger Stone's Ties to Oath Keepers Raised As Members Charged With Sedition (newsweek.com)

3)  Proud boys/Oath Keepers set up weapons stockpiles and form fast reaction teams to help protestors seize Congress if needed: Firearms, a drone and 30 days of supplies: New details of Oath Keepers Jan. 6 weapons cache - POLITICO

4) Jan. 6 happens and rioters are able to enter and stop congress without the teams or stockpiled weapons.  

5) Oath Keepers/Proud Boys get arrested and tried to get Trump as a witness for their defence. Lawyers for Proud Boys member take steps to subpoena former President Trump in seditious conspiracy trial | CNN Politics

6) Proud Boys testify in court that Trump told them to do it. Proud Boys blame Trump as defendants prepare to find out fate in sedition trial (nbcnews.com)

6)  Oath Keepers/Proud Boys found and found guilty of sedition https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/oath-keepers-trial-verdict/index.html

 

Now, are you seeing why the non-shiny toy part of her testimony is important?  It's testimony under oath that Trump personally knew about the Proud Boys/Oath Keepers prior to Jan. 6.  That above chain is what is being used in court cases right now for the 14th amendmet trials.  Without evidence of Step 1, Trump and his lawyers could pretend that they didn't personally know the Oath Keepers/Proud Boys.

But hey, "Secret Service agent said that Trump lunged at a steering wheel" is important too.  Oh, Cassidy Hutchinson was recruited into politics by Ted Cruz (just like Boebart).  She ended up being selected by Mark Meadows to be the aide and actually had a job lined up with Trump's post presidency political operations before her testimony.

[Tatetopa]

A brief interlude for a back to Biden moment.  Even some Republicans are criticizing the handling of the Biden inquiries to date.  One even went so far as to say they should be doing it more like the Jan. 6 committee did. So there may be some disagreement there as to how it is going. 

I have seen the interviews and committee footage.  I as a liberal am not ignoring it for several reasons.  This is my country and I care what is happening.  I do not worship Joe Biden and with a lifetime of cynicism fueled by our politicians, I think it is totally possible he could be  not just another typically  dishonest politician but have crossed over into illegality.  I am curious to see the outcome.

So far, what I have seen has not been a professional investigation.  When the  principals  appear on news shows and continually say they have allegations and are bound to find proof eventually. that is a tipoff that this is not a serious investigation but a media event.   When they whine about how hard it is to get evidence as an excuse for having none, they only show their own incompetence. This high school drama club play stuff that only parents could applaud. The goal seems to be to give Trump some cover in the media and not get serious about an investigation or they would have been doing more investigating and less media blitzing.

What would drive it home to me would be a well organized presentation  filled with a string of Democratic witnesses, Biden insiders and loyalists that testified to his activities.  His Attorney General, White House legal councils, Chief of Staff, Vice President,  aides, lawyers, press secretary, personal assistants, daughter and son-in-law,  and personal lawyers would be a good start.  People that are loyal Democrats and were loyal to Biden until he crossed a line they could not  countenance.

 

 

[DieChecker]

20 hours ago, OverSword said:

It's usually a false equivalency in order to deflect away from a political bias towards one party 

It's to justify support of their own scumbags.

[+Paranoid Android]

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

 

Dang, you guys really do know more about the "Shiny toy" rather than the non-hearsay testimony.

Non-hearsay testimony???? You know basically her entire testimony was hearsay, right? I just went through and listened to the entirety of the interview she gave (thankfully I'm on holidays for two weeks so I had the time to listen to the whole thing):

 

The Proud Boys are mentioned at the 22 minute mark, and the entirety of the testimony was "I heard their names mentioned". No discussion of what context they were heard in, no comments about whether any plans were made with the Proud Boys, no indication whether they were discussed in positive or negative terms. The moderator (whatever her name is) even goes out of her way to mention that Ms Hutchinson could provide no specific details. 

The only other time that The Proud Boys/Oath Keepers are mentioned is all the way after the intermission, just after the 1:16 mark. It's briefly mentioned that Roger Stone had contact with them, and that this contact appeared to be in the form of a security detail at an event in the days before January 6. No attempt was made to link Roger Stone's actions with any kind of knowledge by President Trump.

That's all, that's literally all there is. So with respect, I do wish to go through the rest of your post, but I've just wasted 2 hours of my life listening to witch hunt testimony. It has reinforced just how much of a witch hunt it truly was, so thanks for that, I suppose.  

 

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Let me show you in little baby steps.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, considering the time I've put into watching the testimony. But if you wish to go through the testimony and show me, please do because all I saw was innuendo (there was ONE comment that was worth the 2 hours, I wrote it in my notes that it occurs at the 1:26 mark, that was the most compelling part of the entire video, so if you want to convince me that would be the first place to start, though it's not much to go on).

 

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

1) She testified that Trump and others were discusing the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers prior to Jan.6.  She also testitfied that multiple people (Gaetz, Perry, Gomer, etc.) requested pardons regarding their roles in Jan. 6.

She testified that the Proud Boys were "mentioned" (22 minute mark) - but gave no information about the content of that mention, literally she simply stated that the name was mentioned. In fact, the committee admitted that Cassidy Hutchinson had no specific details about it (21 minute mark).

She said nothing about people requesting pardons, however. That may have come from other testimony, but nothing of that claim was mentioned within Ms Hutchinson's testimony.

 

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

2) Trumps advisor Roger Stone (the one he pardoned) has provable relations with Oath Keepers prior and during Jan. 6.   Roger Stone's Ties to Oath Keepers Raised As Members Charged With Sedition (newsweek.com)

This is the other reference she made to the Oath Keepers. It occurs at the 1:16 mark, just after intermission. What does "provable relations" mean, and is this evidence of something nefarious? According to her testimony, Roger Stone met with Oath Keepers, and some of them acted as his "security detail" for an event prior to January 6. There is no indication that what is happening here is with Trump's knowledge or approval, and even if Trump did know about it, there's nothing to indicate a connection to January 6 or Trump's plans for that day. 

 

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

3)  Proud boys/Oath Keepers set up weapons stockpiles and form fast reaction teams to help protestors seize Congress if needed: Firearms, a drone and 30 days of supplies: New details of Oath Keepers Jan. 6 weapons cache - POLITICO

Not disagreeing with this. Pretty sure a group of Proud Boys were sentenced to 20+ years in prison for that very thing (I'm assuming your article from point #6 is pretty much about this exact thing).

 

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

4) Jan. 6 happens and rioters are able to enter and stop congress without the teams or stockpiled weapons.  

So it was a mostly peaceful protest, then? Though I don't see how the rioters were able to "stop congress" from certifying the election, considering.... you know, the election was certified. 

 

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

5) Oath Keepers/Proud Boys get arrested and tried to get Trump as a witness for their defence. Lawyers for Proud Boys member take steps to subpoena former President Trump in seditious conspiracy trial | CNN Politics

Relevance? How is people using Trump as a defence evidence of anything nefarious? This was a defence that was dismissed by the courts too, I might add - even your article mentions that it's a "long shot" that will likely fail (and indeed it did fail). 

 

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

6) Proud Boys testify in court that Trump told them to do it. Proud Boys blame Trump as defendants prepare to find out fate in sedition trial (nbcnews.com)

See #5. 

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

6)  Oath Keepers/Proud Boys found and found guilty of sedition https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/oath-keepers-trial-verdict/index.html

I know, I mentioned that in #3. 

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Now, are you seeing why the non-shiny toy part of her testimony is important?  It's testimony under oath that Trump personally knew about the Proud Boys/Oath Keepers prior to Jan. 6.  That above chain is what is being used in court cases right now for the 14th amendmet trials.  Without evidence of Step 1, Trump and his lawyers could pretend that they didn't personally know the Oath Keepers/Proud Boys.

But hey, "Secret Service agent said that Trump lunged at a steering wheel" is important too.  Oh, Cassidy Hutchinson was recruited into politics by Ted Cruz (just like Boebart).  She ended up being selected by Mark Meadows to be the aide and actually had a job lined up with Trump's post presidency political operations before her testimony.

You've been misled, my friend. Go and listen to the testimony. I linked the video above. Your claims are dubious, at best. To quote your own claim, "it's testimony under oath that Trump personally knew about the Proud Boys/Oath Keepers prior to Jan. 6.". To be fair, in its broadest sense I agree with the claim. Trump "personally knew about the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers prior to January 6". He knew they existed, he was asked about them in the 2020 presidential debate (and probably mentioned earlier too, but that's the earliest I can recall the Proud Boys being mentioned). But knowing they exist is different to colluding with them to commit illegal acts on January 6, and no evidence of that claim has been brought forward, so I struggle to see how this is evidence of anything but a witch hunt. 

In any case, I can't spend my whole day posting on UM, I'm going to mop my floors today and hopefully get some work completed so I don't have to do much when school returns. Have a good week  

~ Regards, PA

Edited September 27 by Paranoid Android

[Gromdor]

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Non-hearsay testimony???? You know basically her entire testimony was hearsay, right? I just went through and listened to the entirety of the interview she gave (thankfully I'm on holidays for two weeks so I had the time to listen to the whole thing):

 

The Proud Boys are mentioned at the 22 minute mark, and the entirety of the testimony was "I heard their names mentioned". No discussion of what context they were heard in, no comments about whether any plans were made with the Proud Boys, no indication whether they were discussed in positive or negative terms. The moderator (whatever her name is) even goes out of her way to mention that Ms Hutchinson could provide no specific details. 

The only other time that The Proud Boys/Oath Keepers are mentioned is all the way after the intermission, just after the 1:16 mark. It's briefly mentioned that Roger Stone had contact with them, and that this contact appeared to be in the form of a security detail at an event in the days before January 6. No attempt was made to link Roger Stone's actions with any kind of knowledge by President Trump.

That's all, that's literally all there is. So with respect, I do wish to go through the rest of your post, but I've just wasted 2 hours of my life listening to witch hunt testimony. It has reinforced just how much of a witch hunt it truly was, so thanks for that, I suppose.  

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, considering the time I've put into watching the testimony. But if you wish to go through the testimony and show me, please do because all I saw was innuendo (there was ONE comment that was worth the 2 hours, I wrote it in my notes that it occurs at the 1:26 mark, that was the most compelling part of the entire video, so if you want to convince me that would be the first place to start, though it's not much to go on).

 

She testified that the Proud Boys were "mentioned" (22 minute mark) - but gave no information about the content of that mention, literally she simply stated that the name was mentioned. In fact, the committee admitted that Cassidy Hutchinson had no specific details about it (21 minute mark).

She said nothing about people requesting pardons, however. That may have come from other testimony, but nothing of that claim was mentioned within Ms Hutchinson's testimony.

 

This is the other reference she made to the Oath Keepers. It occurs at the 1:16 mark, just after intermission. What does "provable relations" mean, and is this evidence of something nefarious? According to her testimony, Roger Stone met with Oath Keepers, and some of them acted as his "security detail" for an event prior to January 6. There is no indication that what is happening here is with Trump's knowledge or approval, and even if Trump did know about it, there's nothing to indicate a connection to January 6 or Trump's plans for that day. 

 

Not disagreeing with this. Pretty sure a group of Proud Boys were sentenced to 20+ years in prison for that very thing (I'm assuming your article from point #6 is pretty much about this exact thing).

 

So it was a mostly peaceful protest, then? Though I don't see how the rioters were able to "stop congress" from certifying the election, considering.... you know, the election was certified. 

 

Relevance? How is people using Trump as a defence evidence of anything nefarious? This was a defence that was dismissed by the courts too, I might add - even your article mentions that it's a "long shot" that will likely fail (and indeed it did fail). 

 

See #5. 

I know, I mentioned that in #3. 

You've been misled, my friend. Go and listen to the testimony. I linked the video above. Your claims are dubious, at best. To quote your own claim, "it's testimony under oath that Trump personally knew about the Proud Boys/Oath Keepers prior to Jan. 6.". To be fair, in its broadest sense I agree with the claim. Trump "personally knew about the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers prior to January 6". He knew they existed, he was asked about them in the 2020 presidential debate (and probably mentioned earlier too, but that's the earliest I can recall the Proud Boys being mentioned). But knowing they exist is different to colluding with them to commit illegal acts on January 6, and no evidence of that claim has been brought forward, so I struggle to see how this is evidence of anything but a witch hunt. 

In any case, I can't spend my whole day posting on UM, I'm going to mop my floors today and hopefully get some work completed so I don't have to do much when school returns. Have a good week  

~ Regards, PA

Oh, I see the problem.  You are basing your judgement soley on this 2hr video.  You probably were unaware that she gave around 24hrs of testimony in four depositions regarding the matter.  

Though I must admit that her testimony is only minorly important.  It's the other sources of evidence that fit together with her testimony that makes the case against Stone, Trump, and the rest.  Hence my saying her testimony aged well.

Here's some more Stone stuff Congress Has Roger Stone’s Encrypted Chats With Proud Boys and Oath Keepers (vice.com)   

 

[+Paranoid Android]

54 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Oh, I see the problem.  You are basing your judgement soley on this 2hr video.  You probably were unaware that she gave around 24hrs of testimony in four depositions regarding the matter.  

I listened to the full context of the audio in which Ms Hutchinson made headlines for alleging that Trump reached for the steering wheel. You said that we were missing more important parts of her testimony and that this was intentionally done by the "conservatives and media" in order to get people to forget how damaging her testimony was. Would you say that is an accurate summation of your comments in post #104? My comments were aimed at the conservative side of things. The "media" lies at the best of times, and the left wing mainstream media does it to make Republicans look bad, and that's what they did in this instance. My breakdown of that two hours of testimony demonstrates more of the same witch hunt that conservatives have been pointing out since the very start.

I don't have time to listen to 24 hours of footage, even with my holidays. You'll have to quote the relevant sections yourself if you wish to make your case further, because the two hours I did invest did not provide any information, it was innuendo and doublespeak.

 

54 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Though I must admit that her testimony is only minorly important.  It's the other sources of evidence that fit together with her testimony that makes the case against Stone, Trump, and the rest.  Hence my saying her testimony aged well.

At least in the two hours that I watched I didn't see anything that was incriminating (the closest was around the 1:25'ish mark, I mentioned that in my other response - that was the most compelling part of her testimony), not about the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers at any rate, and certainly not enough to warrant connecting such people to Donald Trump's activities on January 6. 

 

54 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Here's some more Stone stuff Congress Has Roger Stone’s Encrypted Chats With Proud Boys and Oath Keepers (vice.com)   

 

Didn't we already establish that Roger Stone was in contact with Proud Boys/Oath Keeprs in the previous post? What new information does this article provide? I can tell you the information that the author WANTS you to take from it. They WANT you to read between the lines and assume the worst. They WANT you to assume that Donald Trump was in on this from the start. They WANT you to assume that the encrypted chats contain incriminating information. That's how shoddy reporting works, and Vice is one of the worst for that kind of emotional blackmail. 

Though the article you linked goes back to July 2022, and I did a quick search and found articles as far back as May 2022 that mention the group chats. Has anything significant come out of those chats? Was Donald Trump incriminated on anything? Was the Trump campaign incriminated on anything? What was said in this group chat, who was implicated, what did Roger Stone say on these group chats, was he a regular contributor? We don't know (or at least I haven't found any articles that go into any details). We don't know what type of input he had, we don't know what the Proud Boys said, we don't know what the Oath Keepers said. We don't know whether Trump was mentioned. We don't know whether Trump was aware of it, we don't know if Trump was put on speaker phone like Joe Biden was put on Hunter Biden's speaker phone in Ukraine!  

But an article from more than 12 months ago is your evidence that you are using to demonstrate to me that Donald Trump collaborated with the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers on January 6, can you see how that is not convincing for someone in my position?  

 

[DieChecker]

Maybe the many witnesses the House is going to call, in the Biden impeachment inquiry, will, "fit together nicely", and provide as rock sold reasoning as that testimony mentioned above.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/25/politics/impeachment-hearing-witnesses-house-oversight/index.html

Quote

House Oversight panel announces witnesses for first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing

Quote

The Republican-led investigation will focus on “allegations of abuse of power, obstruction and corruption” by Biden, related to his family’s overseas business dealings, McCarthy said.

Quote

“This week, the House Oversight Committee will present evidence uncovered to date and hear from legal and financial experts about crimes the Bidens may have committed as they brought in millions at the expense of U.S. interests,” House Oversight Chair James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said in a statement.

Quote

Comer told CNN last week that he planned to have a financial expert speak to bank records pertaining to the Biden family’s business dealings and a constitutional expert to discuss why an impeachment inquiry is warranted.

Quote

The panel is also poised to issue its first subpoenas to the president’s son Hunter Biden and brother James Biden.

Sounds like setting things up. Then in the coming weeks pulling in the eyewitnesses.

[DieChecker]

The "Other" Biden impeachment bill...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/671

Quote

H.Res.671 - Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
117th Congress (2021-2022)

Quote

Specifically, the resolution sets forth articles of impeachment that specify that President Biden violated his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President as follows: (1) by failing to secure the southern border, (2) by extending the moratorium on evictions, and (3) with regard to the withdrawal of United States forces from Afghanistan.

This didn't go very far.

Quote

09/21/2021    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
09/21/2021    Introduced in House

 

[DieChecker]

 

Wiki site on Impeaching Joe Biden.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Joe_Biden

Quote

Fifteen impeachment resolutions have been introduced; seven of which were authored by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Quote

H.Res.652    August 11, 2023

Quote

Article I: "Abuse of power, bribery, Hobbs Act extortion, and honest services fraud"
Article II: Obstruction of Congress
Article III: Fraud
Article IV: "Financial involvement in drug and prostitution activities"

Oh.... Prostitution! I wonder who will be the expert witnesses??

[Gromdor]

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I listened to the full context of the audio in which Ms Hutchinson made headlines for alleging that Trump reached for the steering wheel. You said that we were missing more important parts of her testimony and that this was intentionally done by the "conservatives and media" in order to get people to forget how damaging her testimony was. Would you say that is an accurate summation of your comments in post #104? My comments were aimed at the conservative side of things. The "media" lies at the best of times, and the left wing mainstream media does it to make Republicans look bad, and that's what they did in this instance. My breakdown of that two hours of testimony demonstrates more of the same witch hunt that conservatives have been pointing out since the very start.

I don't have time to listen to 24 hours of footage, even with my holidays. You'll have to quote the relevant sections yourself if you wish to make your case further, because the two hours I did invest did not provide any information, it was innuendo and doublespeak.

 

At least in the two hours that I watched I didn't see anything that was incriminating (the closest was around the 1:25'ish mark, I mentioned that in my other response - that was the most compelling part of her testimony), not about the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers at any rate, and certainly not enough to warrant connecting such people to Donald Trump's activities on January 6. 

 

Didn't we already establish that Roger Stone was in contact with Proud Boys/Oath Keeprs in the previous post? What new information does this article provide? I can tell you the information that the author WANTS you to take from it. They WANT you to read between the lines and assume the worst. They WANT you to assume that Donald Trump was in on this from the start. They WANT you to assume that the encrypted chats contain incriminating information. That's how shoddy reporting works, and Vice is one of the worst for that kind of emotional blackmail. 

Though the article you linked goes back to July 2022, and I did a quick search and found articles as far back as May 2022 that mention the group chats. Has anything significant come out of those chats? Was Donald Trump incriminated on anything? Was the Trump campaign incriminated on anything? What was said in this group chat, who was implicated, what did Roger Stone say on these group chats, was he a regular contributor? We don't know (or at least I haven't found any articles that go into any details). We don't know what type of input he had, we don't know what the Proud Boys said, we don't know what the Oath Keepers said. We don't know whether Trump was mentioned. We don't know whether Trump was aware of it, we don't know if Trump was put on speaker phone like Joe Biden was put on Hunter Biden's speaker phone in Ukraine!  

But an article from more than 12 months ago is your evidence that you are using to demonstrate to me that Donald Trump collaborated with the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers on January 6, can you see how that is not convincing for someone in my position?  

 

I think you are just side tracking yourself with all this quibbling about the details of her testimony.   My point in post #104 was already proven correct by you.  My statement was that conservatives only remember the "shiny toy" or "steering wheel" portion of her testimony and nothing else relevant.  You followed that up with this:

 

11 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

 I just went through and listened to the entirety of the interview she gave (thankfully I'm on holidays for two weeks so I had the time to listen to the whole thing):

 

Meaning you indeed did not remember anything except for the "Shiny Toy" and had to rewatch a vido of it.

I continued to argue the contents of her testimony with you because it humored me, not because it furthered my argument.  But her actual testimony is irrelevant to my original argument.  We can save quibbling over that once(if) an indictment comes down for the Jan 6. violence for either Trump or Stone.

[+OverSword]

 

Quote

 

Hunter Biden received $250K wires originating in Beijing with beneficiary address listed as Joe Biden's home

Hunter Biden received wires that originated in Beijing for more than $250,000 from Chinese business partners during the summer of 2019 — wires that listed the Delaware home of Joe Biden as the beneficiary address for the funds, Fox News Digital has learned from a congressional committee.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., has been investigating the Biden family business dealings and President Biden’s alleged involvement in those ventures.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-received-250k-wire-from-beijing-with-beneficiary-address-listed-as-joe-biden-delaware-home

[Doc Socks Junior]

17 minutes ago, OverSword said:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-received-250k-wire-from-beijing-with-beneficiary-address-listed-as-joe-biden-delaware-home

The Crackhead was living there at the time, I guess?

[DieChecker]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-received-250k-wire-from-beijing-with-beneficiary-address-listed-as-joe-biden-delaware-home

 

1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

The Crackhead was living there at the time, I guess?

Making 1+ million dollars a year, and has to live with Dad. 

Cut the umbilical already. 

[Gromdor]

Hunter's lawyer said that he had no permanent address during the time in question so he used his parents.  He also said that Hunter was taking a loan out against the equity he had in the Chinese company, so the money was basically his anyways.

2017 was when he was getting his divorce and he stayed with Daddy on and off till 2019.

[+and-then]

The hits just keep on comin'

I'd like to say I'm amazed that hardly a single Left voting person here is willing to admit that all the EVIDENCE points to this guy being criminal scum, but sadly, I can't.  It's just par for the course.  It'd be different if they weren't such clear hypocrites.

[DieChecker]

41 minutes ago, and-then said:

I'd like to say I'm amazed that hardly a single Left voting person here is willing to admit that all the EVIDENCE points to this guy being criminal scum, but sadly, I can't.  

I'd just say the silence is deafening. The custom on UM is to defend your guy till they're undefendable. Then go silent as the evidence continues to pile up. Refusing to engage in the lost thread/discussion.  

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I'd just say the silence is deafening. The custom on UM is to defend your guy till they're undefendable. Then go silent as the evidence continues to pile up. Refusing to engage in the lost thread/discussion.  

I just figure if something concrete is found then charges will be pressed or whatever.

One thing I have no doubt of is that Republicans will put Biden under a microscope trying to find evidence.

Edited September 28 by spartan max2

[+Paranoid Android]

12 hours ago, Gromdor said:

I think you are just side tracking yourself with all this quibbling about the details of her testimony.   My point in post #104 was already proven correct by you.  My statement was that conservatives only remember the "shiny toy" or "steering wheel" portion of her testimony and nothing else relevant.  You followed that up with this:

 

Meaning you indeed did not remember anything except for the "Shiny Toy" and had to rewatch a vido of it.

I continued to argue the contents of her testimony with you because it humored me, not because it furthered my argument.  But her actual testimony is irrelevant to my original argument.  We can save quibbling over that once(if) an indictment comes down for the Jan 6. violence for either Trump or Stone.

Her testimony didn't provide anything incriminating, so why would I remember what was said?

Your argument was that the "media and conservatives" (it was the left wing media, not the right wing media making these claims, so I don't know how you joined two groups that never agree with each other on anything) highlighted irrelevant information, and that as a direct result of this decision, other more important information was forgotten - so much so that you discussed with your friends whether this would have the effect of distracting from the important part of her testimony. My argument is that there was nothing of value in her testimony, and rewatching the two hour testimony confirmed that. Your response to this was to say that I needed to watch another 24 hours worth of testimony in order to fully understand it, and as I'm not willing to do that, then the onus is on you to explain the significance of these facts. Otherwise the testimony is completely irrelevant and pointless, the very definition of a "witch hunt". 

Maybe we're both right - if your argument is that we only remembered the "shiny toy", the counter argument is that she didn't say anything relevant worth remembering (and the only reason we remember even as much as we do is that the left wing mainstream media had to try and paint Donald Trump out to be a deranged maniac who would put the lives of everyone in danger by lunging for the steering wheel of a moving vehicle).  

[+and-then]

Nothing to see here, amiright?

[DieChecker]

34 minutes ago, and-then said:

Nothing to see here, amiright?

Just a couple of boys doing unlicensed international lobbying... No big deal, unless it shows up in a Congressional inquiry. 

[F3SS]

It amazes me that these people haven't thought to communicate in a different way. Burner phones at the least. I'm a total nobody and if somebody texts me something off color or inappropriate I delete it immediately and have even told people to not text me certain things anymore. Idk why except that I have this wild idea that anything and everything could somehow, some day be exposed and be used to ruin you. Meanwhile, these people are part of the biggest spotlight in the world and they carry on as if they're total nobodies. It's definitely part stupidity but I think it's mostly hubris.

Edited September 28 by F3SS

[DieChecker]

1 hour ago, F3SS said:

It amazes me that these people haven't thought to communicate in a different way. Burner phones at the least. I'm a total nobody and if somebody texts me something off color or inappropriate I delete it immediately and have even told people to not text me certain things anymore. Idk why except that I have this wild idea that anything and everything could somehow, some day be exposed and be used to ruin you. Meanwhile, these people are part of the biggest spotlight in the world and they carry on as if they're total nobodies. It's definitely part stupidity but I think it's mostly hubris.

It's not just White Privilege....... It's Mega Rich, White Privilage. They honestly believe they'll never get caught. Trump thinks the same way. As does Pelosi, and just about everyone else in the House and Senate.

Edited September 28 by DieChecker

[Doc Socks Junior]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Just a couple of boys doing unlicensed international lobbying... No big deal, unless it shows up in a Congressional inquiry. 

Looks like they needed Joe's help to keep Hunter sober and with a place to stay.

I read the entire thread of messages via a Daily Mail article. Not really new, looks like the article is from May '23. Apparently some Congressional staffer just got around to reading it. I think Jim and Hunter should both be in jail until they learn how to spell, and apparently to pick up phones.

Hunter seems like a bit of a prick.

A little more respect for Slow Joe sticking by the little dbag.