For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul commies to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.
Anyone posting Ben Garrison comics gets a three-day vacation.
dot wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 9:52 pm
Speaking of consistency, denying the existence of anything and everything that unravels your entire case. Such as star witness Devon Archer. Or the "whistleblowers" accusing the Biden justice department of interference while forgetting it was actually the Trump justice department they were complaining about. Want something more recent?
“That’s maybe not a witness I call initially to lay out the case. Maybe my staff should have gone through and asked questions like that in making sure in the traditional preparation of the witnesses,” Bannon said on his podcast.
“And if that was the professor’s thought, and that’s what he believes, maybe we sit around a conference table and say, ‘Hey, well, we have on the whiteboard that professor’s name. Why don’t we put him on the ‘maybe’ category? Why don’t we, maybe we bring him in in a couple of weeks. Maybe we don’t start with him.’ It’s just an idea,” he continued.
“I don’t know what was achieved over these last six-plus hours,” he flatly stated.
“James Comer, the Oversight Committee chairman, said there would be presented a mountain of evidence against Mr. Biden,” Cavuto added. “But none of the expert witnesses today presented, yet, any proof for impeachment.”
Noting that “none of the witnesses today were fact witnesses,” the veteran newsman pointed out that they instead “testified of no direct knowledge” of Republicans’ allegations that the president was involved in a bribery scheme tied to his son Hunter’s foreign business dealings.
“In other words, that this—the way this was built up where there’s smoke there would be fire,” he said. “Again, I’m not a lawyer, and I’ll be talking to smart ones in a moment. But where there’s smoke, today we just got a lot more smoke.”
If you couldn't guess, that's people on your side of the argument telling you that your witnesses like Turley, Bruce Dubinsky, and Eileen O’Connor did not and could not have any evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden and thus resulted in the hearing being a dud for them let alone the rest of us normal people. But hey, you can rest assured they gave you the cover to keep fishing for a crime, since inventing one out of thin air hasn't worked out for you yet.
"Out of thin air"
So youre still going with the evidence being fake? Holy shit
You may not like the evidence. You may think the evidence is flimsy. You may think the Republicans are on a wild goose chase. You can think anything you want but like or not, they DO have evidence. Evidence that is strong enough to justify the inquiry which means the investigation will continue and more evidence will be discovered.
Are the registered "Biden Brand" shell companies "out of thin air"?
Are the documented payments to at least 9 Biden accounts "out of thin air"?
Youre a coward and a hack. Now, go ahead and quote this post and delete those questions because you know you cant answer them you fucking clown.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 1:12 am
"Out of thin air"
So youre still going with the evidence being fake? Holy shit
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa claimed on the Senate floor earlier this week that the foreign national who allegedly bribed then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter has 17 audio recordings of their conversations but questioned whether those tapes even existed in an interview with CNN days later.
“I don’t even know where they are. I just know they exist, because of what the report says. Now, maybe they don’t exist. But how will I know until the FBI tells us, are they showing us their work?” Grassley said Thursday.
Actually, it looks like you're the one who may not like the evidence or lack of it. Figured you would've learned by now, but with all that you have to ignore to pretend you have a case, you're going to forget what I am talking about at any given moment. It's a pretty long list now, but that's what you chose to defend.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 1:12 am
You may not like the evidence. You may think the evidence is flimsy. You may think the Republicans are on a wild goose chase. You can think anything you want but like or not, they DO have evidence. Evidence that is strong enough to justify the inquiry which means the investigation will continue and more evidence will be discovered.
You might have a point if Joe Biden was tied to any of the evidence they have. Guess what, he's not. And it's become very apparent that you know that now which is why you keep having a tantrum whenever you're asked to produce proof of Joe Biden's corruption. But hey, you know what? Don't take my word for it that you ain't got jack. Listen to Turley, or Bannon if you like. No? Listen to Cavuto. Still not good enough? Listen to one of your own reps, Ken Buck. Not a single one of them are Democrats, since you have a problem believing facts from anyone that identifies as such. And every single one of them says you ain't got jack. Don't like it? Then. Show. Us. The. Proof.
And just like I said: he deleted the questions he cant answer!
You keep glossing over the fact that there was enough evidence to warrant an inquiry. Why is that?
Yes, some of what they thought they had didnt pan out. Thats what an investigation is: some leads pan out and some dont. Guess what though: Other stuff did pan out...like subpoenaed bank documents and "Biden Brand" shell companies which you continue to ignore. Why is that?
Are the "Biden Brand" shell companies that received factual documented transactions from foreign interests and then dispersed them to at least 9 Biden family members including one account labeled "JRB" "out of thin air"? Are the shell companies real?
Come on pussy, man up.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 2:05 am
And just like I said: he deleted the questions he cant answer!
You keep glossing over the fact that there was enough evidence to warrant an inquiry. Why is that?
Yes, some of what they thought they had didnt pan out. Thats what an investigation is: some leads pan out and some dont. Guess what though: Other stuff did pan out...like subpoenaed bank documents and "Biden Brand" shell companies which you continue to ignore. Why is that?
Are the "Biden Brand" shell companies that received factual documented transactions from foreign interests and then dispersed them to at least 9 Biden family members including one account labeled "JRB" "out of thin air"? Are the shell companies real?
Come on pussy, man up.
In your own mind, they must be real. Too bad you aren't an attorney general, elected official or person of significance.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Show a tie to Joe Biden. You still can't do it. You have been insisting for months you've got the proof. Your problem is what you've got does not involve Joe Biden, and that's not me saying it. That's your side saying it. So, one more time. Show. Us. The. Proof.
I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment
I mean, if you can't convince your own witness, you ain't got jack.
And yet again you leave out that he also said the current evidence does support the inquiry. Why do you keep leaving that out?
I mean, if you gotta keep leaving that part out that should tell you that youre being disingenuous.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over your guy Turley saying you ain't got jack. You don't have a crime, you're desperately looking for it. And your evidence shows that.
dot wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 2:15 am
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over your guy Turley saying you ain't got jack. You don't have a crime, you're desperately looking for it. And your evidence shows that.
Thats because you only hear and see what you want to hear and see, Turley said that the EVIDENCE they currently have does rise to the level of the inquiry. The key word in that sentence is EVIDENCE. Again, you may not like the EVIDENCE. You may think the EVIDENCE is flimsy and you can laughably think the EVIDENCE doesnt exist...it doesnt matter because it is still EVIDENCE and it rises to the level of supporting the inquiry and investigation.
Youre mad because Turley and others are able to use their critical thinking and logic skills and piece together the circumstantial tidbits and form a conclusion; something you refuse to do. You insist there needs to be a video tape of Shit Show getting handed a big bag of cash...or in other words, youre back to "NUH UH!!!!1"
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Amazing to me that Cheese Man and AntKnot have the evidence available, but for some reason it hasn't made it way to the proper channels for it to be proven in a court of law.
Weird.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
saltydog wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 2:40 pm
Amazing to me that Cheese Man and AntKnot have the evidence available, but for some reason it hasn't made it way to the proper channels for it to be proven in a court of law.
Weird.
Why is it weird? We're only entering the inquiry stage. Which means there is sufficient evidence to warrant/continue the investigation. We're not even close to the "court of law" stage yet or even Impeachment proceedings. They are still gathering evidence. You 2 are really having trouble with this.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
saltydog wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 2:40 pm
Amazing to me that Cheese Man and AntKnot have the evidence available, but for some reason it hasn't made it way to the proper channels for it to be proven in a court of law.
Weird.
Why is it weird? We're only entering the inquiry stage. Which means there is sufficient evidence to warrant/continue the investigation. We're not even close to the "court of law" stage yet or even Impeachment proceedings. They are still gathering evidence. You 2 are really having trouble with this.
Evidence that doesn't exist according to multiple GOP people.
You can't wrap your head around that this is all a theatrical production orchestrated by Trump pushing the whackadoodle representation in government, no?
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
saltydog wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 2:40 pm
Amazing to me that Cheese Man and AntKnot have the evidence available, but for some reason it hasn't made it way to the proper channels for it to be proven in a court of law.
Weird.
Why is it weird? We're only entering the inquiry stage. Which means there is sufficient evidence to warrant/continue the investigation. We're not even close to the "court of law" stage yet or even Impeachment proceedings. They are still gathering evidence. You 2 are really having trouble with this.
Evidence that doesn't exist according to multiple GOP people.
You can't wrap your head around that this is all a theatrical production orchestrated by Trump pushing the whackadoodle representation in government, no?
Oy.
Saying "there isnt evidence for impeachment" is not the same as saying there is no evidence at all. Its a critical point that you 2 continue to misrepresent.
THAT is what you 2 are hanging your hats on: a misrepresentation.
That is the purpose of the inquiry: to determine if there is sufficient cause/evidence to go forth with the investigation...and Turley said there is. Its NOT a trial.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 11:30 am
Thats because you only hear and see what you want to hear and see, Turley said that the EVIDENCE they currently have does rise to the level of the inquiry. The key word in that sentence is EVIDENCE. Again, you may not like the EVIDENCE. You may think the EVIDENCE is flimsy and you can laughably think the EVIDENCE doesnt exist...it doesnt matter because it is still EVIDENCE and it rises to the level of supporting the inquiry and investigation.
Youre mad because Turley and others are able to use their critical thinking and logic skills and piece together the circumstantial tidbits and form a conclusion; something you refuse to do. You insist there needs to be a video tape of Shit Show getting handed a big bag of cash...or in other words, youre back to "NUH UH!!!!1"
That’s comedy gold coming from you. There is no misrepresentation from me, Turley gave you your plausible excuse to continue with the sham impeachment inquiry, shocker that he repeatedly ends up on the wrong side of impeachments to defend Republican causes. However, in doing so he also called everything, literally everything, you claim to be evidence that has convinced you that Joe Biden is corrupt to not be worth anything. And do you know why? Because Joe Biden isn’t in any of it. So once again, you don’t have to believe me that your evidence is flimsy or nonexistent because Turley thinks it so. So once again, the fact is that you can’t produce a thing that ties Joe Biden to a crime. So once again, you’re still looking for a crime. So once again, impeachment inquiries are supposed to already have the crime to investigate. There isn’t one, there is no basis of merit for the inquiry which is why there was never a vote to start the inquiry which previously was a standard that McCarthy himself held. The only reason it moved to this stage is because McCarthy is crippled by his MAGAts that will move to remove him for not doing it. Those same MAGAts who are literal minions of an actual corrupt but thankfully former president who is trying Benghazi Joe Biden so he can con American voters to get his job back so the con job can resume. It’s all about political vengeance, and your reps are so inept that they can’t keep that secret let alone come up with an actual reason to impeach Joe Biden. Not Hunter Biden, not the Biden family, Joe Biden. He’s president. And you have no evidence of a crime by him.
