Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
And now, the TRUTH: Archer's actual testimony--Hunter may have sold sizzle, but no steak.
- Thread starter Rumpole
- Start date
Hunter Biden brought VP Joe to dinner with shady business partners
Joe Biden met with Ukrainian, Russian and Kazakhstani business associates of his son’s at a dinner in Washington, DC, while he was vice president, records on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop s…
nypost.com
You act like makes it ok…oddWe now have the transcripts of Archer's testimony, here.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf
Starting on page 102 of the Hearing involving Devon Archer's testimony: Lines staring
with the letter A, (for Answer) are Archer's testimony/answers to questions which are the heart of what this hearing is all about, whether or not any real access was 'sold', or whether or not foreign policy was affected by Hunter's presence on the board of Burisma, or whether or not Joe Biden benefited, financially, from Hunter Biden's presence on the Board, or whether or not Archer was aware of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden, etc.
On the issue of the 'Joe calling in on speakerphone" on page 41, Archer states:
I think you have to understand that there was no business conversation about a cap table or a fee or anything like that. It was, you know, just general niceties and, you know, conversation in general, you know, about the geography, about the weather, whatever it may be.
I'm sorry to report to you Republicans, but, although it is clear that Hunter leveraged his dad's 'Brand', he did it entirely independently of his father, and the calls from Joe did not prove Joe involved himself in his son's deals, it seems clear to me that this is Hunter just showing off to his associates who is father is, and the spectacle of having the Vice President of the United States 'call in'.
In short, Hunter sold sizzle, but no steak.
Is that illegal? he can allude to steak, i.e.,, the 'illusion of access' as it was referred to in another thread, but I don't think that is illegal. And if it is, I don't care because there is NOTHING on Joe here that proves any wrongdoing.
Hunter is a private citizen, and that's the end of it..
The worst you got on Hunter is a FARA violation. But FARA violations are not proof of corruption, it's a process crime.
Transcript, starting on page 102, noting that Biden's getting Ukraine to fire Shokin, that issue was dealt with, towards the end of this OP,
Q At the conclusion of that investigation, Senate minority staff issued a report summarizing the findings. And I'd like to read those for you.
"Every witness interviewed for this investigation testified that Vice President Biden did not alter United States foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden, and that Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy. Every witness stated that Hunter Biden and his associates had no role in the formulation of U.S. policy, that Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions, and that Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States. The investigation's evidence, set forth in this Minority report, confirms there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of" the Vice President."
Having read that for you, I have a few questions for you based on your own knowledge and experience. So based on your own knowledge and experience -- your relationship with Hunter Biden, your time on Burisma's board, and the entirety of your knowledge and experience -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that, quote, "Vice President Biden did not alter U.S. foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden"?
A I have no basis to know if he altered. I have no basis to know if he altered policy to benefit his son.
Q So you have no knowledge --
A I have no knowledge. Sorry.
Q -- of him --
A Yes, I have no knowledge.
Q -- altering U.S. policy to benefit his son.
A I have no knowledge.
Q You -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy"?
A Not directly. You mean like making laws? I don't -- I don't think so.
Mr. Goldman. Foreign policy.
Mr. Archer. No -- no -- no on foreign policy.
Q No basis to disagree with that conclusion.
A No.
Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions"?
A I have -- yeah, I have no basis.
Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States"?
A I have no basis to judge.
Q Or to disagree with that.
A Or disagree.
Q You have no knowledge -- nothing based on your knowledge or experience contradicts this conclusion.
A No.
Q Does anything in your knowledge or experience contradict the conclusion that "there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of Vice President Biden"?
A I have no basis to know.
Q The report also found, quote, "No --"
Mr. Goldman. I'm sorry. You have no basis to know or is that a no?
Mr. Archer. I have -- I have -- I would have no idea.
Mr. Goldman. No basis --
Mr. Schwartz. Are you aware of any wrongdoing by Vice President Biden?
Mr. Archer. No, I'm not aware of any.
Q So based on your knowledge and experience, you have no evidence that would contradict any of these conclusions I just read.
A No.
Q The report also found, quote, "No evidence that any action of the U.S. Government or any U.S. official was taken to benefit Burisma or Hunter Biden." Do you have any evidence or knowledge that contradicts this conclusion?
A No.
Q So based on everything you saw, heard, and observed, did you have any knowledge of Joe Biden having any involvement with Burisma?
A No -- not direct, no.
Q No involvement of Joe --
A No.
And on the issue of Biden getting Ukraine to fire Shokin:
Q And so this goes to this idea that Shokin, who was prosecutor general in 24 2015, was good for Burisma.
A Uh-huh.
Q Is that fair? Now, Vice President Biden was vocal about his concerns about corruption in the prosecutor general's office in Ukraine during this time period.
A Correct.
Q And called for the removal of Shokin from office. Is that correct?
A Yes. That was very well publicized.
Q Okay. And the Senate minority report, which I referenced earlier, described how Vice President's public calls for the Ukrainian Government to remove Shokin as prosecutor general was part of an anticorruption policy of the U.S. Government with broad bipartisan support, as well as support from allies and international institutions like the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Do you agree with that conclusion?
A Sorry. Can you repeat that?
Q Yeah. The Vice President's public calls for the removal of Shokin was part of this broad bipartisan, international anticorruption effort in Ukraine.
A Yes, I believe that was -- that was part of the conversation.
Q so do you have any basis to believe that Vice President Biden's call for
Shokin's removal was driven by anything other than the U.S. Government's anticorruption
policy in Ukraine?
A Yeah, I have no -- I have no other -- I have no proof or thought that he fired him for that reason.
Q You have no reason to believe otherwise?
A I have no reason to believe.
Sorry, there simply is no wrongdoing evidenced in this testimony regarding our president, Joe Biden. I look forward to Hunter's testimony. I'm confident it will be similar, and all you Republicans, for all the accusations, 'Biden Crime Family" Bribed Joe this, Bribed Joe that, all of you will have a tank load of EGG on your faces.
In truth, what is really going on here is a massive witch hunt in order to thwart attention away from Trump's indictments, and he will have a total of 4, no doubt, very soon. I can't help that your guy is a real criminal and ours is not, perhaps you should vote for a decent human being instead of a crook.
That's on you.
Selling influence is only half of it.The selective outrage I see here is breathtaking.
Trump gives a speech and they want to put him in prison for 600 years.
Biden gets caught extorting money and taking bribes from our enemies and these idiot Biden supporters say it's a big nothing burger.
Biden's war on energy and selling the SPR down to China to artificially keep the price of oil low during elections is criminal.
When the SPR is empty and the oil wells are running dry, then the US will see what Traitor Joe really did.
You're preaching to the choir.Selling influence is only half of it.
Biden's war on energy and selling the SPR down to China to artificially keep the price of oil low during elections is criminal.
When the SPR is empty and the oil wells are running dry, then the US will see what Traitor Joe really did.
The exact same shit the GOP in the Senate found out in 2020 this whole farce is just a farce.We now have the transcripts of Archer's testimony, here.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf
Starting on page 102 of the Hearing involving Devon Archer's testimony: Lines staring
with the letter A, (for Answer) are Archer's testimony/answers to questions which are the heart of what this hearing is all about, whether or not any real access was 'sold', or whether or not foreign policy was affected by Hunter's presence on the board of Burisma, or whether or not Joe Biden benefited, financially, from Hunter Biden's presence on the Board, or whether or not Archer was aware of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden, etc.
On the issue of the 'Joe calling in on speakerphone" on page 41, Archer states:
I think you have to understand that there was no business conversation about a cap table or a fee or anything like that. It was, you know, just general niceties and, you know, conversation in general, you know, about the geography, about the weather, whatever it may be.
I'm sorry to report to you Republicans, but, although it is clear that Hunter leveraged his dad's 'Brand', he did it entirely independently of his father, and the calls from Joe did not prove Joe involved himself in his son's deals, it seems clear to me that this is Hunter just showing off to his associates who is father is, and the spectacle of having the Vice President of the United States 'call in'.
In short, Hunter sold sizzle, but no steak.
Is that illegal? he can allude to steak, i.e.,, the 'illusion of access' as it was referred to in another thread, but I don't think that is illegal. And if it is, I don't care because there is NOTHING on Joe here that proves any wrongdoing.
Hunter is a private citizen, and that's the end of it..
The worst you got on Hunter is a FARA violation. But FARA violations are not proof of corruption, it's a process crime.
Transcript, starting on page 102, noting that Biden's getting Ukraine to fire Shokin, that issue was dealt with, towards the end of this OP,
Q At the conclusion of that investigation, Senate minority staff issued a report summarizing the findings. And I'd like to read those for you.
"Every witness interviewed for this investigation testified that Vice President Biden did not alter United States foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden, and that Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy. Every witness stated that Hunter Biden and his associates had no role in the formulation of U.S. policy, that Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions, and that Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States. The investigation's evidence, set forth in this Minority report, confirms there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of" the Vice President."
Having read that for you, I have a few questions for you based on your own knowledge and experience. So based on your own knowledge and experience -- your relationship with Hunter Biden, your time on Burisma's board, and the entirety of your knowledge and experience -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that, quote, "Vice President Biden did not alter U.S. foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden"?
A I have no basis to know if he altered. I have no basis to know if he altered policy to benefit his son.
Q So you have no knowledge --
A I have no knowledge. Sorry.
Q -- of him --
A Yes, I have no knowledge.
Q -- altering U.S. policy to benefit his son.
A I have no knowledge.
Q You -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy"?
A Not directly. You mean like making laws? I don't -- I don't think so.
Mr. Goldman. Foreign policy.
Mr. Archer. No -- no -- no on foreign policy.
Q No basis to disagree with that conclusion.
A No.
Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions"?
A I have -- yeah, I have no basis.
Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States"?
A I have no basis to judge.
Q Or to disagree with that.
A Or disagree.
Q You have no knowledge -- nothing based on your knowledge or experience contradicts this conclusion.
A No.
Q Does anything in your knowledge or experience contradict the conclusion that "there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of Vice President Biden"?
A I have no basis to know.
Q The report also found, quote, "No --"
Mr. Goldman. I'm sorry. You have no basis to know or is that a no?
Mr. Archer. I have -- I have -- I would have no idea.
Mr. Goldman. No basis --
Mr. Schwartz. Are you aware of any wrongdoing by Vice President Biden?
Mr. Archer. No, I'm not aware of any.
Q So based on your knowledge and experience, you have no evidence that would contradict any of these conclusions I just read.
A No.
Q The report also found, quote, "No evidence that any action of the U.S. Government or any U.S. official was taken to benefit Burisma or Hunter Biden." Do you have any evidence or knowledge that contradicts this conclusion?
A No.
Q So based on everything you saw, heard, and observed, did you have any knowledge of Joe Biden having any involvement with Burisma?
A No -- not direct, no.
Q No involvement of Joe --
A No.
And on the issue of Biden getting Ukraine to fire Shokin:
Q And so this goes to this idea that Shokin, who was prosecutor general in 24 2015, was good for Burisma.
A Uh-huh.
Q Is that fair? Now, Vice President Biden was vocal about his concerns about corruption in the prosecutor general's office in Ukraine during this time period.
A Correct.
Q And called for the removal of Shokin from office. Is that correct?
A Yes. That was very well publicized.
Q Okay. And the Senate minority report, which I referenced earlier, described how Vice President's public calls for the Ukrainian Government to remove Shokin as prosecutor general was part of an anticorruption policy of the U.S. Government with broad bipartisan support, as well as support from allies and international institutions like the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Do you agree with that conclusion?
A Sorry. Can you repeat that?
Q Yeah. The Vice President's public calls for the removal of Shokin was part of this broad bipartisan, international anticorruption effort in Ukraine.
A Yes, I believe that was -- that was part of the conversation.
Q so do you have any basis to believe that Vice President Biden's call for
Shokin's removal was driven by anything other than the U.S. Government's anticorruption
policy in Ukraine?
A Yeah, I have no -- I have no other -- I have no proof or thought that he fired him for that reason.
Q You have no reason to believe otherwise?
A I have no reason to believe.
Sorry, there simply is no wrongdoing evidenced in this testimony regarding our president, Joe Biden. I look forward to Hunter's testimony. I'm confident it will be similar, and all you Republicans, for all the accusations, 'Biden Crime Family" Bribed Joe this, Bribed Joe that, all of you will have a tank load of EGG on your faces.
In truth, what is really going on here is a massive witch hunt in order to thwart attention away from Trump's indictments, and he will have a total of 4, no doubt, very soon. I can't help that your guy is a real criminal and ours is not, perhaps you should vote for a decent human being instead of a crook.
That's on you.
Biden doesn't sell any oil, Congress does. Biden doesn't buy oil Congress does...See how that works?Selling influence is only half of it.
Biden's war on energy and selling the SPR down to China to artificially keep the price of oil low during elections is criminal.
When the SPR is empty and the oil wells are running dry, then the US will see what Traitor Joe really did.
MarathonMike
Diamond Member
Democrats have officially moved the goal posts into the parking lot. So NOW the cover story is Joe met the foreign nationals, spoke on the phone with the foreign nationals, accepted TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from the foreign nationals, but was completely unaware what the meetings and the money was for. How does any REAL American lower themself to defend the Joe Biden at this point? 
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Please feel blighted to provide the information about the law whereby Congress specifically authorized the sale of any of our oil to the communist Chinese.Biden doesn't sell any oil, Congress does. Biden doesn't buy oil Congress does...See how that works?
excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 18,356
- 34,888
- 2,290
Hunter was selling the inference of Joe being helpful
Of course. Hunter only had daddy Joe to offer.
excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 18,356
- 34,888
- 2,290
Democrats have officially moved the goal posts into the parking lot. So NOW the cover story is Joe met the foreign nationals, spoke on the phone with the foreign nationals, accepted TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from the foreign nationals, but was completely unaware what the meetings and the money was for. How does any REAL American lower themself to defend the Joe Biden at this point?
And all Joe did was talk about the weather.
Arresmillao
Diamond Member
- Apr 2, 2020
- 1,743
- 1,636
- 1,938
We now have the transcripts of Archer's testimony, here.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf
Starting on page 102 of the Hearing involving Devon Archer's testimony: Lines staring
with the letter A, (for Answer) are Archer's testimony/answers to questions which are the heart of what this hearing is all about, whether or not any real access was 'sold', or whether or not foreign policy was affected by Hunter's presence on the board of Burisma, or whether or not Joe Biden benefited, financially, from Hunter Biden's presence on the Board, or whether or not Archer was aware of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden, etc.
On the issue of the 'Joe calling in on speakerphone" on page 41, Archer states:
I think you have to understand that there was no business conversation about a cap table or a fee or anything like that. It was, you know, just general niceties and, you know, conversation in general, you know, about the geography, about the weather, whatever it may be.
I'm sorry to report to you Republicans, but, although it is clear that Hunter leveraged his dad's 'Brand', he did it entirely independently of his father, and the calls from Joe did not prove Joe involved himself in his son's deals, it seems clear to me that this is Hunter just showing off to his associates who is father is, and the spectacle of having the Vice President of the United States 'call in'.
In short, Hunter sold sizzle, but no steak.
Is that illegal? he can allude to steak, i.e.,, the 'illusion of access' as it was referred to in another thread, but I don't think that is illegal. And if it is, I don't care because there is NOTHING on Joe here that proves any wrongdoing.
Hunter is a private citizen, and that's the end of it..
The worst you got on Hunter is a FARA violation. But FARA violations are not proof of corruption, it's a process crime.
Transcript, starting on page 102, noting that Biden's getting Ukraine to fire Shokin, that issue was dealt with, towards the end of this OP,
Q At the conclusion of that investigation, Senate minority staff issued a report summarizing the findings. And I'd like to read those for you.
"Every witness interviewed for this investigation testified that Vice President Biden did not alter United States foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden, and that Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy. Every witness stated that Hunter Biden and his associates had no role in the formulation of U.S. policy, that Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions, and that Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States. The investigation's evidence, set forth in this Minority report, confirms there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of" the Vice President."
Having read that for you, I have a few questions for you based on your own knowledge and experience. So based on your own knowledge and experience -- your relationship with Hunter Biden, your time on Burisma's board, and the entirety of your knowledge and experience -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that, quote, "Vice President Biden did not alter U.S. foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden"?
A I have no basis to know if he altered. I have no basis to know if he altered policy to benefit his son.
Q So you have no knowledge --
A I have no knowledge. Sorry.
Q -- of him --
A Yes, I have no knowledge.
Q -- altering U.S. policy to benefit his son.
A I have no knowledge.
Q You -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy"?
A Not directly. You mean like making laws? I don't -- I don't think so.
Mr. Goldman. Foreign policy.
Mr. Archer. No -- no -- no on foreign policy.
Q No basis to disagree with that conclusion.
A No.
Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions"?
A I have -- yeah, I have no basis.
Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States"?
A I have no basis to judge.
Q Or to disagree with that.
A Or disagree.
Q You have no knowledge -- nothing based on your knowledge or experience contradicts this conclusion.
A No.
Q Does anything in your knowledge or experience contradict the conclusion that "there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of Vice President Biden"?
A I have no basis to know.
Q The report also found, quote, "No --"
Mr. Goldman. I'm sorry. You have no basis to know or is that a no?
Mr. Archer. I have -- I have -- I would have no idea.
Mr. Goldman. No basis --
Mr. Schwartz. Are you aware of any wrongdoing by Vice President Biden?
Mr. Archer. No, I'm not aware of any.
Q So based on your knowledge and experience, you have no evidence that would contradict any of these conclusions I just read.
A No.
Q The report also found, quote, "No evidence that any action of the U.S. Government or any U.S. official was taken to benefit Burisma or Hunter Biden." Do you have any evidence or knowledge that contradicts this conclusion?
A No.
Q So based on everything you saw, heard, and observed, did you have any knowledge of Joe Biden having any involvement with Burisma?
A No -- not direct, no.
Q No involvement of Joe --
A No.
And on the issue of Biden getting Ukraine to fire Shokin:
Q And so this goes to this idea that Shokin, who was prosecutor general in 24 2015, was good for Burisma.
A Uh-huh.
Q Is that fair? Now, Vice President Biden was vocal about his concerns about corruption in the prosecutor general's office in Ukraine during this time period.
A Correct.
Q And called for the removal of Shokin from office. Is that correct?
A Yes. That was very well publicized.
Q Okay. And the Senate minority report, which I referenced earlier, described how Vice President's public calls for the Ukrainian Government to remove Shokin as prosecutor general was part of an anticorruption policy of the U.S. Government with broad bipartisan support, as well as support from allies and international institutions like the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Do you agree with that conclusion?
A Sorry. Can you repeat that?
Q Yeah. The Vice President's public calls for the removal of Shokin was part of this broad bipartisan, international anticorruption effort in Ukraine.
A Yes, I believe that was -- that was part of the conversation.
Q so do you have any basis to believe that Vice President Biden's call for
Shokin's removal was driven by anything other than the U.S. Government's anticorruption
policy in Ukraine?
A Yeah, I have no -- I have no other -- I have no proof or thought that he fired him for that reason.
Q You have no reason to believe otherwise?
A I have no reason to believe.
Sorry, there simply is no wrongdoing evidenced in this testimony regarding our president, Joe Biden. I look forward to Hunter's testimony. I'm confident it will be similar, and all you Republicans, for all the accusations, 'Biden Crime Family" Bribed Joe this, Bribed Joe that, all of you will have a tank load of EGG on your faces.
In truth, what is really going on here is a massive witch hunt in order to thwart attention away from Trump's indictments, and he will have a total of 4, no doubt, very soon. I can't help that your guy is a real criminal and ours is not, perhaps you should vote for a decent human being instead of a crook.
That's on you.
Hunter is a private citizen and a U.S. veteran, of course he benefited from being the son of the vice-president, and in any case, if he broke the law, he should pay the price. Compare that with rapist-traitor dj trump, whose children directly benefited with billions from the Saudis, while being employed by our government, that is the definition of swampiness, should be thoroughly investigated.
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Put up or stfu, armadildo.Hunter is a private citizen and a U.S. veteran, of course he benefited from being the son of the vice-president, and in any case, if he broke the law, he should pay the price. Compare that with rapist-traitor dj trump, whose children directly benefited with billions from the Saudis, while being employed by our government, that is the definition of swampiness, should be thoroughly investigated.
View attachment 811358
Arresmillao
Diamond Member
- Apr 2, 2020
- 1,743
- 1,636
- 1,938
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
"put up"
Don’t worry, armadildo. Nobody expected you to put anything up to support your bullshit.
It's the Forrest Biden defense!Democrats have officially moved the goal posts into the parking lot. So NOW the cover story is Joe met the foreign nationals, spoke on the phone with the foreign nationals, accepted TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from the foreign nationals, but was completely unaware what the meetings and the money was for. How does any REAL American lower themself to defend the Joe Biden at this point?
Arresmillao
Diamond Member
- Apr 2, 2020
- 1,743
- 1,636
- 1,938
Don’t worry, armadildo. Nobody expected you to put anything up to support your bullshit.
I overestimated you, you are not just a moron, but a mega mage-moron...
As correctly noted by the OP, the lies contrived by conservatives about President Biden and his son is nothing more than a dishonest attempt to deflect from Trump’s corruption and crimes.Hunter was selling the inference of Joe being helpful
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.Why did joe biden fling the southern border wide open killing hundreds of thousands of Americans???
He's getting paid 10% from the mexican drug cartel...why else would he do it?
Even NYC is now bitching about the invasion of illegals yet the border remains wide open! And Americans keep dying. And joe keeps profiting.
Definition: Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact or set of facts from which one could infer the fact in question. For example, that a suspect is seen running away from a murder scene with a weapon in hand is circumstantial evidence he committed the murder.
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Already refuted. The willingness of simpletons like you to repeat failed propaganda isn’t even surprising anymore, Adam_Clayton_Joke.As correctly noted by the OP, the lies contrived by conservatives about President Biden and his son is nothing more than a dishonest attempt to deflect from Trump’s corruption and crimes.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 309
- Replies
- 58
- Views
- 701
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 170
- Replies
- 184
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 52
- Views
- 361
- Replies
- 151
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 68
- Views
- 378
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8093
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-