Ashley Biden confirms showers with ShitShow are true

[Animal]

fucking poor dumb dot calls this "goal post moving".

Are you going to address what happened or not? Because you keep shifting to charges filed and ignoring what happened that day and why. Goalpost moving is what you're doing. Either answer the question or admit your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s claim is wrong.

you poor dumb fuck. my post proves that jan 6th wasn't an insurrection. are you at the point of trolling where you don't even read anything?

[dot]

you poor dumb fuck. my post proves that jan 6th wasn't an insurrection. are you at the point of trolling where you don't even read anything?

Wrong, you ignored the elements of insurrection proven already in posts past. You ignored the motivation and goals of that day. Your word salad is meant to obfuscate and distract from the fact that insurrection was proven by accepted definitions. Now I'll give you credit, you came the closest you have in months to trying again. But until you disprove how January 6 fits the elements of insurrection, then all you're doing is shifting goalposts again to avoid talking about that. Adding more words but not addressing the argument itself will not change the conclusion. Do your homework.

[dot]

Insurrection is covered in the 14th Amendment and it says that "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress........ shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

To prove my point about shifting the goalposts, I highlight this bad faith attempt on the 14th Amendment. Cause here's what it actually says:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Now why, oh why, would you have left out key provisions of the insurrection clause?

[Animal]

you poor dumb fuck. my post proves that jan 6th wasn't an insurrection. are you at the point of trolling where you don't even read anything?

Wrong, you ignored the elements of insurrection proven already in posts past. You ignored the motivation and goals of that day. Your word salad is meant to obfuscate and distract from the fact that insurrection was proven by accepted definitions. Now I'll give you credit, you came the closest you have in months to trying again. But until you disprove how January 6 fits the elements of insurrection, then all you're doing is shifting goalposts again to avoid talking about that. Adding more words but not addressing the argument itself will not change the conclusion. Do your homework.

i proved how Jan 6th was not an insurrection. The FBI has even acknowledged that the events of that day do not rise to the level of an insurrection. The FBI concluded that it was not well organized, almost all people were there simply to protest and there was never any real attempt at rebellion. all of which are required for an insurrection. you stupid dummy.

Your Black Lives Matter protests came closer to meeting the definition of an insurrection, poor dumb dot.

[Animal]

Insurrection is covered in the 14th Amendment and it says that "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress........ shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

To prove my point about shifting the goalposts, I highlight this bad faith attempt on the 14th Amendment. Cause here's what it actually says:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Now why, oh why, would you have left out key provisions of the insurrection clause?

i left it out because that part has nothing to do with it. but, by all means, put it in. it changes nothing. an insurrection has to be on the level of a rebellion. with weapons and an attempt to defeat the nation. you don't walk around for 2 hours and then go home and call it an insurrection, you dumb dumb dot.

[CHEEZY17]

If you're not going to address the insurrection being an insurrection, then why do you keep coming back when you will not prove your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s claim? Because that's what you keep dodging with your cowardice. Hack does hack things.

Its been addressed numerous times by numerous people over the weeks and months. You just dont like the answer so you delete, dodge and ignore. Thats why you are Dodgin' Dot.
Since I agree with the United States Justice Department that means they must be hacks too.
For you to be right it means the United States Justice Department must be wrong. There is no other option as this is a completely binary scenario. If one of you is right; the other must be wrong.
Which is it Dodgin' Dot?
In essence you are saying that you understand the "facts of that day" better than the United States Justice Department.
Until you can explain why you are right and the Justice Department is wrong youre just pissing in the wind. Your opinion on the matter means diddly squat. They are legal professionals that examine and evaluate evidence for a living while you are a retard on the interweb. You hate that and deep down you know that your opinion means diddly squat as you also know that the only people that matter have already determined what that day was; and that determination was "not insurrection".
If they agreed with you and thought the "facts of the day" supported your claim they would have proceeded on that route. Unfortunately for you they did not and decided literally hundreds of times that your determination is incorrect. Seethe harder, retard.
Why are they wrong and you are right? Clock is ticking! Tick tock!

Can you admit the laptop and diary (and everything contained within) are real?

Can you finally admit your corruption case against Joe Biden fell apart and you got duped by disinformation that never amounted to proof of corruption to begin with? That'll mark off at least a few items from the list you refuse to admit happened.

No, I will not admit that because it is inaccurate. All of the evidence accumulated so far can be found right here:
https://oversight.house.gov/landing/bid ... stigation/

Just like your misrepresentation of Turleys comments you keep clinging to trying to magic them into reality. He actually addressed people like you misrepresenting his testimony with the following:
"...Rep. Raskin (D., Md.) just stated that that I testified with other witnesses that "nothing would approach" an impeachable offense in this inquiry. That again is not true. I said that opposite. I stated that there was ample evidence for the inquiry and, if proven, the allegations would amount to impeachable offenses."
Seethe harder, retard.

[dot]

i proved how Jan 6th was not an insurrection.

You didn't. And since you won't do your homework and are engaging in bad faith attempts via omission of key language and goalpost moving, I can only conclude from your responses that you are fully aware of how your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s claim doesn't hold water. But by all means, try to disprove the elements of insurrection. I already did my part which you did nothing to refute. But this path isn't gonna get you there cause you won't address the actual argument and ignore the parts that disprove you.

i left it out because that part has nothing to do with it.

See? Bad faith, dishonest. It directly applies to not just the inciter in chief, but also his congressional traitor allies. But it just happens to be left out in your word salad trying to deflect the weight of January 6. Right.

but, by all means, put it in. it changes nothing. an insurrection has to be on the level of a rebellion.

Element met in previous posts. Do your homework.

with weapons and an attempt to defeat the nation.

Element met in previous posts. Do your homework.

you don't walk around for 2 hours and then go home and call it an insurrection, you dumb dumb dot.

See? Bad faith, dishonest. Refusal to acknowledge the events and conduct of that day. You gonna try again or just further prove you aren't up to the task?

Still refusing to admit reality or prove your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s claim? Yup, must be the hack doing hack things. If you don't wanna be discarded for not addressing the argument, then finally engage and prove January 6 was not an insurrection or that insurrection is incorrectly defined. I get that you don't want to play on the field of reality, but that's not my problem. I didn't force you to be the disingenuous partisan hack that you are.

[CHEEZY17]

Its always amusing when Dodgin' Dot accuses someone of not addressing or answering a question.
Why are the Justice Departments conclusion(s) regarding the evidence and "facts of that day" wrong and your conclusion is right?

[dot]

Its always amusing when Dodgin' Dot accuses someone of not addressing or answering a question.

I mean, you're still not answering many questions, such as what is Joe Biden's crime? How is January 6 not an insurrection? How do you rectify your bought and paid for pundit saying on national tv that your case for corruption is not what you claimed it to be for months? How do you feel that your case was fabricated by foreign intelligence disinformation? Not my fault your default mode is to deflect and run away when asked to stay on point. Like say here, where the challenge is prove January 6 was not an insurrection or that insurrection is incorrectly defined. Yes, it is amusing to see you continue to dodge so many of your key news items. Hack does hack things though.

[CHEEZY17]

Its always amusing when Dodgin' Dot accuses someone of not addressing or answering a question.

I mean, you're still not answering many questions, such as what is Joe Biden's crime? How is January 6 not an insurrection? How do you rectify your bought and paid for pundit saying on national tv that your case for corruption is not what you claimed it to be for months? How do you feel that your case was fabricated by foreign intelligence disinformation? Not my fault your default mode is to deflect and run away when asked to stay on point. Like say here, where the challenge is prove January 6 was not an insurrection or that insurrection is incorrectly defined. Yes, it is amusing to see you continue to dodge so many of your key news items. Hack does hack things though.

All of that has been addressed numerous times you just dont like answers so you dodge and delete. Its what you do day after day.
In posting that gibberish you literally dodged a question that really gets to the heart of your giant fail:
Why are the Justice Departments conclusion(s) regarding the evidence and "facts of that day" wrong and your conclusion is right?

[dot]

All of that has been addressed numerous times you just dont like answers so you dodge and delete.

Except it wasn't. Just like now, you won't acknowledge each and every one of those items and the others previously listed for you. You can't even admit to a single fact. For example, you have yet to admit your pundit shot down your claim of proven corruption for months prior to the televised hearing. This convenient ignorance of saying the evidence does not prove worthy of impeachment goes directly against your claiming for months that Joe Biden was proven guilty of corruption. Now we can go down the list if you'd like, but given you won't acknowledge reality, I doubt you got the stones for it. Which is why we get posts like this which are discarded because you can't and won't engage on the subject. Hack does hack things again.

[CHEEZY17]

All of that has been addressed numerous times you just dont like answers so you dodge and delete.

Except it wasn't. Just like now, you won't acknowledge each and every one of those items and the others previously listed for you. You can't even admit to a single fact. For example, you have yet to admit your pundit shot down your claim of proven corruption for months prior to the televised hearing. This convenient ignorance of saying the evidence does not prove worthy of impeachment goes directly against your claiming for months that Joe Biden was proven guilty of corruption. Now we can go down the list if you'd like, but given you won't acknowledge reality, I doubt you got the stones for it. Which is why we get posts like this which are discarded because you can't and won't engage on the subject. Hack does hack things again.

Your continued misrepresentation of Turleys comments was literally addressed (yet again)just a few posts above you absolute fucking retard
"...Rep. Raskin (D., Md.) just stated that that I testified with other witnesses that "nothing would approach" an impeachable offense in this inquiry. That again is not true. I said the opposite. I stated that there was ample evidence for the inquiry and, if proven, the allegations would amount to impeachable offenses."
Seethe harder, retard.
Now, give it a try you fucking coward!

Why are the Justice Departments conclusion(s) regarding the evidence and "facts of that day" wrong and your conclusion is right?

[dot]

Your continued misrepresentation of Turleys comments was literally addressed (yet again)just a few posts above you absolute fucking retard

Says the disingenuous hack continuing to ignore the facts in front of you.

Hack's claim: Joe Biden is proven to be corrupt, look at this mountain of evidence.
Bought and paid for pundit's testimony: I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment.

These two things are at odds with each other then and still continue to be, despite how much you want to ignore that. Since you continue to act in bad faith, deflection and distraction posts are discarded. As always, the hack does hack things.

[Animal]

i like that dot represents the cream of the crop for the democrats and he just keeps getting dumber. like super dumb. he comes and he does absolutely nothing to contribute other than his same old tired out meaningless drivel. hack hacks and stuff. he proves that the quickest way to rise up and out of the democratic party is to get an education.

[Homebrew]

Your continued misrepresentation of Turleys comments was literally addressed (yet again)just a few posts above you absolute fucking retard

Says the disingenuous hack continuing to ignore the facts in front of you.

Hack's claim: Joe Biden is proven to be corrupt, look at this mountain of evidence.
Bought and paid for pundit's testimony: I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment.

These two things are at odds with each other then and still continue to be, despite how much you want to ignore that. Since you continue to act in bad faith, deflection and distraction posts are discarded. As always, the hack does hack things.

[dot]

i like that dot represents the cream of the crop for the democrats and he just keeps getting dumber. like super dumb. he comes and he does absolutely nothing to contribute other than his same old tired out meaningless drivel. hack hacks and stuff. he proves that the quickest way to rise up and out of the democratic party is to get an education.

From the guy that prides himself on making the dumbest from the gut assumptions that always turn out wrong, remaining intentionally ignorant about that which he wants to weigh on in. Your fraud defense went up in smoke because you were intentionally inept at understanding the crimes committed. Hack's months long claims of corruption by Joe Biden went up in smoke on live television over and over and over, whether that be by admission from his own hired experts or by criminal revelations from his sources or by performance of his incompetent reps trying to prosecute their case in the news. Like it or not, I'm just pointing out the failings of you guys. It's not my fault you can't do better.

[CHEEZY17]

I'll just keep misrepresenting, ignoring and deleting any points I dont like while simultaneously claiming no points have been made.

Yes, you prove that Every. Single. Time.

[dot]

Yes, you prove that Every. Single. Time.

Ignoring the facts, truth, reality of what you pushed and what got revealed counter to your claim is not going to change, hack. Your house of cards already collapsed, you pretending it didn't is just icing on the amusement cake to the rest of us now.