Another log on the Biden family fire

[TexasTiger 13,028]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

What do you want Biden charged with?  The crime of having a son that couldn't keep his nose clean?  The IRS "whistleblowers" don't even reference Joe Biden.  They suggested more tax charges and they were overruled because their job is not to charge.  That is the job of the DOJ.

And it’s not uncommon for investigators who have no responsibility for obtaining an actual conviction to advocate for more charges.

[AU9377 5,043]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

And it’s not uncommon for investigators who have no responsibility for obtaining an actual conviction to advocate for more charges.

Exactly, in fact, it happens all the time. 

Edited June 26, 2023 by AU9377

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I think Republicans will continue to throw unsubstantiated allegations 24/7 because so many folks like you are eager to believe them so it fires up the base. No amount of evidence tends to change the minds of folks who really want to believe something. 

Yeah, sounds a lot like the Trump Russia collusion doesn’t it.  Let it take it’s course.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

39 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

What do you want Biden charged with?  The crime of having a son that couldn't keep his nose clean?  The IRS "whistleblowers" don't even reference Joe Biden.  They suggested more tax charges and they were overruled because their job is not to charge.  That is the job of the DOJ.

I don’t know at this point.  Bribery would be a good one, but more evidence will have to be presented. I do believe Merrick Garland will fall first.  That would be interesting.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t know at this point.  Bribery would be a good one, but more evidence will have to be presented. I do believe Merrick Garland will fall first.  That would be interesting.

Why Garland? Just got to get somebody?

[AU9377 5,043]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t know at this point.  Bribery would be a good one, but more evidence will have to be presented. I do believe Merrick Garland will fall first.  That would be interesting.

Merrick Garland is a well respected former senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C.  In normal times, he would be on the Supreme Court.  He isn't some leftist as right wing media wants to portray him.  In fact, he was a very moderate judge that Obama selected to nominate to the court, in part, because his decisions gave little excuse for not allowing his confirmation to come to a vote.  Partisan politics being what they are, we all know how that turned out.

He would not have made the public statements that he made if those statements could be contradicted by those involved.  The U.S. Attorneys involved have all released public statements confirming his statement that they were free to charge what they believed was appropriate.

The House Republicans don't respect anything but partisan gutter fights.  Truth is the casualty.  Jeff Sessions was a lifelong Republican.  When he followed the law, you all disposed of him quickly.  Bill Barr did more to prop up Donald Trump than anyone could have ever imagined.  Even he reached the point where he could not sacrifice every ounce of his professional integrity to help the man illegally change election results.  When that was a bridge too far, you all dismissed him as well.  At some point, adults have to recognize it for what it is.

Edited June 26, 2023 by AU9377

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Why Garland? Just got to get somebody?

First domino, he has lied to Congress and denied a whistleblower from establishing a special council about Biden’s bribery case.  Again, that will have to be proven under oath similar to the 1st Trump impeachment.  I would like to hear what the whistleblower has to say and Garland defense.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Merrick Garland is a well respected former senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C.  In normal times, he would be on the Supreme Court.  He isn't some leftist as right wing media wants to portray him.  In fact, he was a very moderate judge that Obama selected to nominate to the court, in part, because his decisions gave little excuse for not allowing his confirmation to come to a vote.  Partisan politics being what they are, we all know how that turned out.

He would not have made the public statements that he made if those statements could be contradicted by those involved.  The U.S. Attorneys involved have all released public statements confirming statement that they were free to charge what they believed was appropriate.

I don’t believe you.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

First domino, he has lied to Congress and denied a whistleblower from establishing a special council about Biden’s bribery case.  Again, that will have to be proven under oath similar to the 1st Trump impeachment.  I would like to hear what the whistleblower has to say and Garland defense.

Your mind is made up. You have no interest in Justice.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Your mind is made up. You have no interest in Justice.

Why?  Because I want to hear the whistleblower and the defense?  It sounds like I do want justice.

[AU9377 5,043]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t believe you.

Your choice.

Another possibility to consider....

Keeping in mind that investigators DO NOT MAKE DECISIONS TO CHARGE CRIMES, I could see a situation wherein the now former IRS agents suggested charges in California and DC and David Weiss responded by saying something along the lines of "I would need to consult with the U.S. Attorneys in those districts before making a decision to charge.  I don't have Special Prosecutor designation." 

That could be interpreted by the non lawyer investigators to mean that he wasn't capable of charging in those districts, but that may not have been what he meant by the statement.  Hunter Biden is a private citizen.  Even if he had been charged with two additional counts of tax evasion, which is all that was allegedly proposed by the former agents, would you be satisfied?  You obviously believe he is part of some criminal conspiracy.  The problem is that your only proof is what Hannity or some other talking head thinks and not real evidence,

[TexasTiger 13,028]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why?  Because I want to hear the whistleblower and the defense?  It sounds like I do want justice.

You’ve already decided.

[AU9377 5,043]

30 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

First domino, he has lied to Congress and denied a whistleblower from establishing a special council about Biden’s bribery case.  Again, that will have to be proven under oath similar to the 1st Trump impeachment.  I would like to hear what the whistleblower has to say and Garland defense.

What bribery case? 

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

Just now, AU9377 said:

What bribery case? 

The one that is coming.

 

The podcast is about 45 minutes long and Cruz lays out his case on Garland and Biden.  You don’t have to believe it, but I find it’s compelling.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You’ve already decided.

Have you decided Trump is guilty of the charges Garland has presented?  Even without a trial?

Surely you’re not playing the holier than thou card.

[AU9377 5,043]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

The one that is coming.

 

The podcast is about 45 minutes long and Cruz lays out his case on Garland and Biden.  You don’t have to believe it, but I find it’s compelling.

You don't find it the slightest bit strange that he can talk for 45 minutes about growing evidence and not produce any evidence at all?  It is a lost cause attempting to reason with people that will only listen to something that confirms what they already think.

[AU9377 5,043]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Have you decided Trump is guilty of the charges Garland has presented?  Even without a trial?

Surely you’re not playing the holier than thou card.

A grand jury indicted Trump.  Trump also admitted that he held the documents.  There are also pictures of the documents at Mar-a-lago.  There isn't a shred of assumption or opinion involved.  I don't believe that it does anyone any good for him to get prison time.  He simply has to learn that he is not bigger than the U.S. Govt. and that those documents are not his.  How is that being unfair to him in any way?

Edited June 26, 2023 by AU9377

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

Just now, AU9377 said:

You don't find it the slightest bit strange that he can talk for 45 minutes about growing evidence and not produce any evidence at all?  It is a lost cause attempting to reason with people that will only listen to something that confirms what they already think.

He spelled it out, you obviously didn’t listen.  Like I said; you don’t have to believe it.  And I have said that I would like the opportunity to hear both sides.  I hope I get it, you, on the other hand, want testimony to be silenced.  Who is listening to what confirms their beliefs?

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

A grand jury indicted Trump.  Trump also admitted that he held the documents.  There are also pictures of the documents at Mar-a-lago.  There isn't a shred of assumption or opinion involved.

Yet Trump has not put up a defense as of yet and you have him guilty.   I guess there is no need for a trail.  See what I mean?

[AU9377 5,043]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

He spelled it out, you obviously didn’t listen.  Like I said; you don’t have to believe it.  And I have said that I would like the opportunity to hear both sides.  I hope I get it, you, on the other hand, want testimony to be silenced.  Who is listening to what confirms their beliefs?

All Cruz does is make assumptions.  He wants you to read a Whatsapp mssg that Hunter sent to someone in China (Cruz calls him a communist party official, but everybody in business in China is a Communist party official) and conclude that it is a bribe.  Is that what you want to charge someone with?  What has Biden done, other than piss China off since becoming President? 

This is another one of the rabbit holes going to nowhere that you all love to run down.

How many times were we told about all the crimes John Durham had uncovered?  What happened to those?

[AU9377 5,043]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yet Trump has not put up a defense as of yet and you have him guilty.   I guess there is no need for a trail.  See what I mean?

I don't go on and on about Trump's criminal conduct.  It would be the right thing to do for the Republicans to hold him to some standard of conduct, but they have shown over and over that they won't do that.  Their cult like adoration prevents any actual consequences resulting from his actions. 

The only reason the Hunter charges are so front page now is that they provide a distraction and an avenue for whataboutisms. 

[TexasTiger 13,028]

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Have you decided Trump is guilty of the charges Garland has presented?  Even without a trial?

Surely you’re not playing the holier than thou card.

I’ve seen a detailed indictment which includes critical evidence which, if true, would indicate he’s guilty. I’m interested in his defense to those charges. So far, what he’s offered in interviews is pretty weak. Our positions aren’t remotely alike, even though you can’t discern the difference.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

All Cruz does is make assumptions.  He wants you to read a Whatsapp mssg that Hunter sent to someone in China (Cruz calls him a communist party official, but everybody in business in China is a Communist party official) and conclude that it is a bribe.  Is that what you want to charge someone with?

Yes, they are assumptions and some pretty good ones.  The WhatsApp message was clearly Hunter shaking down a CCP official whether his father was there or not.  The threat that his father was there seems to have worked because within 10 days $5 mill shows up in LLC’s owned by the Biden’s.  There is evidence that both Hunter and Joe were there that day and, as Cruz says, it is easy to trace the whereabouts of both just by pinging their phones, but for some reason it wasn’t done.

If there is the least bit of impropriety I would like to hear it on an official stage.

8 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

How many times were we told about all the crimes John Durham had uncovered?  What happened to those?

They were exposed and were not acted upon. 

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, they are assumptions and some pretty good ones.  The WhatsApp message was clearly Hunter shaking down a CCP official whether his father was there or not.  The threat that his father was there seems to have worked because within 10 days $5 mill shows up in LLC’s owned by the Biden’s.  There is evidence that both Hunter and Joe were there that day and, as Cruz says, it is easy to trace the whereabouts of both just by pinging their phones, but for some reason it wasn’t done.

If there is the least bit of impropriety I would like to hear it on an official stage.

They were exposed and were not acted upon. 

Even if I’m sitting by you, texting someone I’m doing so, implying you’re supportive of what I’m doing, you likely have no idea who or what I’m texting. Even if you can place two folks in the same house, that doesn’t implicate a plot. 

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’ve seen a detailed indictment which includes critical evidence which, if true, would indicate he’s guilty. I’m interested in his defense to those charges. So far, what he’s offered in interviews is pretty weak. Our positions aren’t remotely alike, even though you can’t discern the difference.

Such BS.  You are interested in Trump’s defense, right?  How is that different the me wanting to hear Garland’s defense?  The only difference is Trump has been indicted and we all know the Dems have been working on that since 2016.

Garland has yet to start squirming.  He may not need to, but lets see if Cruz has the chance to ask question in the Senate.