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.
So a businessman from America has overseas business interest.
Is this different than Mr. Trump borrowing all of his lending from Russa for the alst twenty or so years?
He also threw some trash on the ground. Where is the justice!Money laundering, bribery, influence peddling, treason, and tax evasion look to be the most likely.
Scripted to deflect from the truth.Poor Martin. He's been humiliated badly, along with the rest of his liars' cult, and he knows it, so he's lashing out in rage and shame.
In the eyes of Stalinist hacks like Martin, if TheParty's fishing expedition finds absolutely nothing ... that just proves the evidence is being hidden!
This is reason #24 why it's so good to be a Democrat. Since we don't LieForTheParty, we never get humiliated for being such bad liars.
Anyways, here's the testimony that matters.
---
Swalwell: Did your father ever employ in the Oval Office any direct family member to also work in the Oval Office?
Hunter: My father has never employed any direct family members, to my knowledge.
Swalwell: While your father was President, did anyone in the family receive 41 trademarks from China?
Hunter: No.
Swalwell: As President and the leader of the party, has your father ever tried to install as the chairperson of the party a daughter-in-law or anyone else in the family?
Hunter: No. And I don't think that anyone in my family would be crazy enough to want to be the chairperson of the DNC.
Swalwell: Has your father ever in his time as an adult been fined $355 million by any State that he worked in?
Hunter: No, he has not, thank God.
Swallwell: Anyone in your family ever strike a multibillion-dollar deal with the Saudi Government while your father was in office?
Hunter: No.
Swalwell: That's all I've got.
---
<mic drop>
Money laundering, bribery - But no money has been traced to Joe? Is he guilty because his son may be guilty?Money laundering, bribery, influence peddling, treason, and tax evasion look to be the most likely.
You have about 14,784 TDS threads to vent your hate. This thread is about the corruption of the Biden family.Of course you don’t want people to look at Trump. What a mess!
#DIDYOUSMELLTHAT
Uh. This is an impeachment inquiryI'm pretty sure Abuse of Office is not a criminal offense. Impeachable maybe, but not criminal,
I'd point you to the Democrat's first impeachment of Trump for that crime. It might help your understanding.and I still don't know how Joe abused his office.
Not necessaryBribery is another matter but I don't believe Joe has been linked to any money
Not necessaryand I don't believe he has been accused of acting against the interests of the US.
Here's the bribery statute if it will help. I'd refer you to section b(2). The evidence you are asking for is not required by the statute.Without having evidence of one or the other, this is appears to be a political witch-hunt.
You said it is not a requirement for Joe to have personally profited. Sounds like there was no crime committed.
Do we know if there has been an impeachable offense that took place?Uh. This is an impeachment inquiry
My understanding of that event was that a whistleblower came forward and accused the President of using US foreign aid as a lever to force a foreign government to assist Trump in his reelection. Aside from a Russian agent, I don't know of any whistleblowersI'd point you to the Democrat's first impeachment of Trump for that crime. It might help your understanding.
You mean there is nothing yet but if they keep digging, who knows.Not necessary
Not necessary
Thanks, I'll take a look at a later time.Here's the bribery statute if it will help. I'd refer you to section b(2). The evidence you are asking for is not required by the statute.
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
www.law.cornell.edu
So what crime did Joe commit for the fun of it?You live in bizzarro world.
You say there is no crime because (you think that) Joe didn't personally benefit.
I say that it is not a requirement for Joe to have benefited for there to be a crime.
You jump to - no crime.
which is nonsensical of course.
Do we know if there has been an impeachable offense that took place?
And Biden himself admitted he withheld a billion dollars in aid to get the prosecutor fired, who his son's boss asked him to deal with.My understanding of that event was that a whistleblower came forward and accused the President of using US foreign aid as a lever to force a foreign government to assist Trump in his reelection. Aside from a Russian agent, I don't know of any whistleblowers
Nope. Tons of evidence to prove bribery, not the evidence you mistakenly thought was necessary.You mean there is nothing yet but if they keep digging, who knows.
Deal. Come back and ask questions if you are still confused.Thanks, I'll take a look at a later time.
So what crime did Joe commit for the fun of it?
WhatThe fact still remains he lied, many many times, to the American people that he absolutely had no business dealings with his son or associates.
Joe Biden Lied At Least 16 Times About His Family’s Business Schemes - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountabilityoversight.house.gov
That's not smoke, that's a fire. So if he for years lied to everyone about that, how much else is he lying about concerning all this foreign money?
There’s just the bugaboo of evidence, right?Money laundering, bribery, influence peddling, treason, and tax evasion look to be the most likely.
It is against the LAW for the president and administration to with hold CONGRESSIONALLY PASSED MILITARY AID.... Military aid by Congress can not be held back for any reason or negotiation, without notification to congress and congressional approval. HE HID THIS from Congress because his threat to Zelensky involved only his personal goal to hurt his political opponent.If the House says there was an impeachable offense, there was an impeachable offense.
And Biden himself admitted he withheld a billion dollars in aid to get the prosecutor fired, who his son's boss asked him to deal with.
Nope. Tons of evidence to prove bribery, not the evidence you mistakenly thought was necessary.
Deal. Come back and ask questions if you are still confused.
OK. But withholding any kind of aid for your own (family) personal benefit is illegalIt is against the LAW for the president and administration to with hold CONGRESSIONALLY PASSED MILITARY AID.... Military aid by Congress can not be held back for any reason or negotiation, without notification to congress and congressional approval. HE HID THIS from Congress because his threat to Zelensky involved only his personal goal to hurt his political opponent.
Trump broke the law in several ways, thus his impeachment.
The aid Biden threaten to hold back was NOT, Military aid passed by Congress and regardless, Congressmen were aware of the aid being held back until the Ukraine complied with the goals and policies of the USA to curb and prosecute corruption....
The situations, under the LAW, are not comparable.... Military aid, vs humanitarian or financial aid have different laws governing them.... Non military aid is commonly used by our govt to negotiate.
Military aid passed by congress, is never used to negotiate and is required to be disbursed immediately by the administration.
Yes! What Trump did, for his own personal benefit, was illegal.OK. But withholding any kind of aid for your own (family) personal benefit is illegal
Has the said WHAT that impeachable offense might have been or will they just keep investigating until after the election?If the House says there was an impeachable offense, there was an impeachable offense.
The lie has been debunked many times.And Biden himself admitted he withheld a billion dollars in aid to get the prosecutor fired, who his son's boss asked him to deal with.
How come no one has see this unnecessary 'evidence'?Nope. Tons of evidence to prove bribery, not the evidence you mistakenly thought was necessary.
He’s relying entirely on a distortion of Devon Archer’s testimony. That’s it. There’s literally nothing else.How come no one has see this unnecessary 'evidence'?