UJRefugees.net

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:45 am Yep, and what theyve accumulated so far warrants continuation according to Turley. Like those pesky subpoenaed bank documents and shell companies belonging to the "Biden Brand".

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:51 am Youre disingenuous because you keep responding like this is an impeachment trial when it is not. The evidence collected so far warrants the inquiry. THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS AT THIS POINT. It doesnt matter if the evidence collected so far doesnt rise to the impeachment level because this isnt an impeachment trial you fucking disingenuous hack. The whole point was to discover if the investigation should continue and according to Turley ithe evidence collected so far means it should. Be honest you fucking coward.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 12:36 am

necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 12:33 am Nice dodge. You says a lot when you can just call yourself a fucking moron and it would be easier.

That's your thing, bud.

saltydog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 12:52 am

necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 12:34 am

saltydog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 12:21 am

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 11:54 pm

dot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 11:35 pm

necronomous wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 11:26 pm Stop projecting. If you can't see how you're both ignorant here, you should both shoot yourselves.

I'm not the one pretending January 6 didn't happen. I'm also not the one with no balls to prove your various conspiracy theories about the justice system. Braindead and cowardly.

I just did. With the corrupt judge. You ignored, which is typical. And I didn't say Jan 6th didn't happen. It happens every year. I said an insurrection nor a coup happened, and thus far, noone has been charged for it. So that proves me right more than you.

I hate when I'm proved wrong so I'm going to whine like a baby. Waaaaahhhhhh

Ftfy

"No one has been charged for it"

There's hundreds of people who have been convicted due to Jan 6th.

I also showed proof.

You should probably have a relative come by your place of residence and take away power tools or anything requiring electricity.

necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 2:14 am More projecting. No wonder everyone thinks you're a fucking idiot.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 2:09 am

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:45 am Yep, and what theyve accumulated so far warrants continuation according to Turley. Like those pesky subpoenaed bank documents and shell companies belonging to the "Biden Brand".

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:51 am Youre disingenuous because you keep responding like this is an impeachment trial when it is not. The evidence collected so far warrants the inquiry. THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS AT THIS POINT. It doesnt matter if the evidence collected so far doesnt rise to the impeachment level because this isnt an impeachment trial you fucking disingenuous hack. The whole point was to discover if the investigation should continue and according to Turley ithe evidence collected so far means it should. Be honest you fucking coward.

And yet, according to Turley, no crime as yet is determined to have been committed by Joe Biden according to said "evidence." Whoops. It's amazing that you can still function without the brainpower necessary to process why you can't win this. Your evidence up to this point, day after day, you've said it proves Joe Biden is corrupt. Many disagreed, you disregarded, because you had a predetermined conclusion to reach. Now you got someone under oath, a supposed constitutional expert that y'all had to rely on to defend an actual corrupt president but hey let's ignore that fact for the moment. Because you find Turley beyond reproach right? So all the work done to get to this point. You've insisted it shows Joe Biden is corrupt, many crimes, just look at it. Well guess what, he did, and he said that what you got don't mean jack towards a crime being committed by Joe Biden. Guess what we've been asking for, months on end now. Proof that Joe Biden committed a crime. So Turley and the Democrats and everyone based in reality? We agree, there's no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong. It's you and your reps that don't accept that, because you have a predetermined conclusion to reach. You can have your illegitimate inquiry okayed by your inept now former Speaker, you can even ignore the fact that another expert who isn't a paid Fox News personality told you that your inquiry has no basis and was never voted on by the House, something that previously they cared deeply about. But what you can't have is evidence against Hunter Biden magically transform into evidence against Joe Biden. You're going to need actual evidence against Joe Biden. You're going to have to square that evidence, or rather the lack of it, versus the evidence that shows he had nothing to do with what his son was doing. You know, that other star witness you boasted over who was gonna blow the case wide open. Before he didn't. See, bud, the whole point was never to determine if the investigation should continue, not from me, because after all I kept asking you for proof of Joe Biden's criminality. How you going to provide that if there is no investigation? No, the point was to show, as it pertains to a crime committed by Joe Biden, that even your own latest star witness says:

You. Don't. Got. Jack.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 2:20 am

necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 2:14 am More projecting. No wonder everyone thinks you're a fucking idiot.

I'm not the braindead coward denying reality while subscribing to conspiracy theories that idiots believe. Enjoy the company you associate with.

necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:52 am No, you're just fucking stupid and can't see what's plainly in front of you because you have your head so far up your own ass trying to show how elitist and pretentious you are.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 3:24 am It must burn that the guy you have to quote in order to have a flimsy excuse also shot apart everything you swear by in mere seconds. If only you had the brainpower to comprehend it.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 7:00 am

necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:52 am No, you're just fucking stupid and can't see what's plainly in front of you because you have your head so far up your own ass trying to show how elitist and pretentious you are.

Braindead coward describes himself. Enjoy your conspiracy nut crowd, bud.

necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 11:36 am

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 7:00 am

necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:52 am No, you're just fucking stupid and can't see what's plainly in front of you because you have your head so far up your own ass trying to show how elitist and pretentious you are.

Braindead coward describes himself. Enjoy your conspiracy nut crowd, bud.

can't see what's plainly in front of you

Called it.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 11:32 am Except he didnt "shoot anything apart". All he did was say the evidence they currently have doesnt rise to the level of an impeachment WHICH DOESNT MATTER BECAUSE THIS ISNT AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL you disingenuous hack. Most importantly what he DID say is that the evidence they currently have DOES justify the inquiry.
You hate that a respected legal scholar says that there is enough evidence to warrant the investigation when for weeks all you have said is that there is no evidence or that the evidence is fake. Basically he blew up your whole "nuh uh!" excuse.
Its why you cant answer if the shell companies are real or why people create shell companies in the first place. Because that forces you to process information and make logical connections. You are a coward and a jizz guzzling hack.

necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 11:36 am can't see what's plainly in front of you

Called it.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 3:55 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 11:32 am Except he didnt "shoot anything apart". All he did was say the evidence they currently have doesnt rise to the level of an impeachment WHICH DOESNT MATTER BECAUSE THIS ISNT AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL you disingenuous hack. Most importantly what he DID say is that the evidence they currently have DOES justify the inquiry.
You hate that a respected legal scholar says that there is enough evidence to warrant the investigation when for weeks all you have said is that there is no evidence or that the evidence is fake. Basically he blew up your whole "nuh uh!" excuse.
Its why you cant answer if the shell companies are real or why people create shell companies in the first place. Because that forces you to process information and make logical connections. You are a coward and a jizz guzzling hack.

Kinda does matter when you've been hyping up the supposed evidence for months. Evidence that you say proves Joe Biden is corrupt, and yet doesn't have a single tie to him. So what we have here is you lack the brainpower to realize or maybe just admit that you don't got jack. And it's not just me saying it. It's your own star witness part deux. Cause Turley gives you your flimsy excuse to have an inquiry, he's a tool of the MAGAts after all, but he also tells the world that what you have doesn't prove a single crime was committed by Joe Biden. Once again, that's not me telling you that like I have for months. That's your star witness telling you that. Stay mad.

necronomous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 11:36 am can't see what's plainly in front of you

Called it.

Yes, braindead coward describes himself kinda covered it. Say hi to Q for the forum.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:24 pm The "star witness" and legal scholar says the evidence supports the inquiry and the investigation into Shit Show and the Biden Brand. Own it.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:27 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:24 pm The "star witness" and legal scholar says the evidence supports the inquiry and the investigation into Shit Show and the Biden Brand. Own it.

And he also said what evidence you've accumulated to this point does not mean jack in regards to Joe Biden. Guess which is more damning between the two, because I don't care about Hunter Biden as he's not president. You however can't seem to say the flipside of that equation, and Turley agrees with me. You don't got jack.

Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:30 pm No, he did not say it didn’t mean Jack. He said that it amounted to the need for further inquiry. Own it you disingenuous turd

I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:34 pm

Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:30 pm No, he did not say it didn’t mean Jack. He said that it amounted to the need for further inquiry. Own it you disingenuous turd

Oh you poor simple mind.

I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment

Months of evidence gathered, hyped as proving Joe Biden is corrupt. Guess what, he said it didn't mean jack. Own that.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:34 pm

Antknot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:30 pm No, he did not say it didn’t mean Jack. He said that it amounted to the need for further inquiry. Own it you disingenuous turd

Oh you poor simple mind.

I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment

Months of evidence gathered, hyped as proving Joe Biden is corrupt. Guess what, he said it didn't mean jack. Own that.

Animal wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:15 pm If a person was climbing Mount Everest and during his climb a reporter was asked if he should be given an award for climbing the mountain, and that reporter said "I do not believe that his current level of ascent meets the standards of an award for climbing Mount Everest", I wonder if Dot understands that doesn't mean the reporter is saying that the award won't be given once that summit is reached?

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:51 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:15 pm If a person was climbing Mount Everest and during his climb a reporter was asked if he should be given an award for climbing the mountain, and that reporter said "I do not believe that his current level of ascent meets the standards of an award for climbing Mount Everest", I wonder if Dot understands that doesn't mean the reporter is saying that the award won't be given once that summit is reached?

Oh look, another poor simple mind. The question remains, where is the proof of Joe Biden committing a crime? That's been asked for months. The analogy would actually be Cheez tries climbing Mount Everest, reaching the top. Someone asks him how he feels about climbing the mountain, and he crows he did it, only for that questioner to point out he actually climbed Mount Kilimanjaro.

Animal wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 6:31 pm Actually, cheese has told your dumb ass about 50 times that he knows they still need to finish climbing. And he's even acknowleged that they might not make it to the top, but they should at least keep trying.

you on the other hand want to declare the entire thing over with. which smells like someone that is afraid of what they might find.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 7:10 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 6:31 pm Actually, cheese has told your dumb ass about 50 times that he knows they still need to finish climbing. And he's even acknowleged that they might not make it to the top, but they should at least keep trying.

you on the other hand want to declare the entire thing over with. which smells like someone that is afraid of what they might find.

Wrong, yet again. How would I get the answers I want if it's declared over? Granted, Turley gave me the answer but Cheez doesn't seem to realize that. See, I'll give you credit, you came up with a great analogy with the mountain climbing. But the problem is they keep climbing the wrong mountain for what they want to do. If you want to prove Joe Biden (Everest) did something wrong, then they're gonna have to show Joe Biden (Everest) behind a crime and not his son Hunter (Kilimanjaro). All their evidence (climbing) has only been about Hunter (Kilimanjaro). None of it, and they admit this themselves, has produced a tie to Joe Biden (Everest).

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 7:22 pm Yet the legal expert thinks the evidence they have warrants the investigation and justifies the inquiry.

dot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 7:24 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 7:22 pm Yet the legal expert thinks the evidence they have warrants the investigation and justifies the inquiry.

Same legal expert says your evidence doesn't say Joe Biden committed a crime. You said the opposite. Which one are you going to swear by?

saltydog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 7:33 pm Give him a minute to check the Cult Handbook.