Does Dan Goldman get paid extra by the Democrats to look as bad as he does?

[para bellum]

Dude, his opinion is not hard evidence. He was Hunter’s business partner, yet he has not hard evidence to offer. That was clear in his testimony.

And now he is trying to monetize you fuckups.

Lol. You just proved what I said.

Sworn testimony is evidence. That is recognized in every court in the land. The exhibits were entered into the record, so they are evidence also.

He was in the loop and he was a credible witness. I do not care what you think qualifies as "hard" evidence, nor am I willing to waste time talking in circles with you...

 

[otto105]

Lol. You just proved what I said.

Sworn testimony is evidence. That is recognized in every court in the land. The exhibits were entered into the record, so they are evidence also.

He was in the loop and he was a credible witness. I do not care what you think qualifies as "hard" evidence, nor am I willing to waste time talking in circles with you...

His evidence wasn’t sworn.

Also, my point was he had no supporting documentation of his opinion.

 

[para bellum]

His evidence wasn’t sworn.

Also, my point was he had no supporting documentation of his opinion.

False on both counts.

You obviously didn't even look at the transcript.

 

[otto105]

False on both counts.

You obviously didn't even look at the transcript.

I watched it live. He failed in every attempt to justify why he was called before the committee again.

Didn’t you watch it.

 

[Marener]

Lol. You just proved what I said.

Sworn testimony is evidence. That is recognized in every court in the land. The exhibits were entered into the record, so they are evidence also.

He was in the loop and he was a credible witness. I do not care what you think qualifies as "hard" evidence, nor am I willing to waste time talking in circles with you...

Can you describe the evidence?

 

[para bellum]

I watched it live. He failed in every attempt to justify why he was called before the committee again.

Didn’t you watch it.

I am not interested in your rationalizations.

Every bit of it is in the transcript, including the exhibits. Read it.

 

[para bellum]

Can you describe the evidence?

I posted the transcript and the exhibits. Read it.

 

[otto105]

I am not interested in your rationalizations.

Every bit of it is in the transcript, including the exhibits. Read it.

Not a rationalization.

I watched him live and took my measure of his testimony. He failed on all accounts.

 

[para bellum]

Not a rationalization.

I watched him live and took my measure of his testimony. He failed on all accounts.

So that's your opinion, which is completely predictable and does not surprise me in the least.

If it was Trump instead of Biden, dems would have impeached him over it. But it's Biden, so naturally you ignore the evidence and smear the messenger.

Dems have institutionalized the marketing of US Foreign Policy, and you guys are cool with it. That's pretty fucked up.

 

[Marener]

I posted the transcript and the exhibits. Read it.

Indeed you did. But can you describe what the evidence shows?

 

[para bellum]

Indeed you did. But can you describe what the evidence shows?

I have no interest in talking in circles with you either.

 

[Marener]

I have no interest in talking in circles with you either.

I’m not going in circles. Just a straightforward question.

I don’t think you want to admit that his testimony doesn’t really describe crimes. He claims they committed crimes but he doesn’t actually have first hand accounts of anything.

Thats why I asked you to describe the evidence. It’s easy to say that his testimony is evidence of a crime, but that doesn’t make it true.

 

[para bellum]

I’m not going in circles. Just a straightforward question.

I don’t think you want to admit that his testimony doesn’t really describe crimes. He claims they committed crimes but he doesn’t actually have first hand accounts of anything.

Thats why I asked you to describe the evidence. It’s easy to say that his testimony is evidence of a crime, but that doesn’t make it true.

I really don't care what you imagine my view to be. If you can't comprehend my posts that is your problem.

Of course he has first hand accounts- his entire testimony was a first hand account.

He is describing the way the shell companies were setup and what their purpose was. He was directly involved, so he is in a position to know. It was a pay-to-play scheme, and Joe Biden was the product they were selling.

Same thing the Clintons did, and you guys are cool with it. Because it's your team.

If it was Trump, there would have been another impeachment. Bobulinski would be hailed as a whistleblower, and all you lefties would be screaming from the rooftops how Trump was selling out the country.

So spare me the faux interest, go cheer your team- it's not my job to educate the uneducable and I'm not going to waste time trying.

 

[Marener]

I really don't care what you imagine my view to be. If you can't comprehend my posts that is your problem.

Of course he has first hand accounts- his entire testimony was a first hand account.

He is describing the way the shell companies were setup and what their purpose was. He was directly involved, so he is in a position to know. It was a pay-to-play scheme, and Joe Biden was the product they were selling.

Same thing the Clintons did, and you guys are cool with it. Because it's your team.

If it was Trump, there would have been another impeachment. Bobulinski would be hailed as a whistleblower, and all you lefties would be screaming from the rooftops how Trump was selling out the country.

So spare me the faux interest, go cheer your team- it's not my job to educate the uneducable and I'm not going to waste time trying.

Bobulinski didnt become involved with their business until 2017, so at that point in time they can charge any sum of money to get access to Joe Biden, and it’s not corruption of any sort because in 2017 Joe Biden was not an office holder.

So again, the problem here is really identifying what happening that was actually a crime.

 

[Clipper]

I see the Schiff groupies are still standing by their Russia collusion hoax.

Yep, & Trump is still doing it along with a few more of Putin's bitches in the HOR.