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.
Not at all. Somebody buying something worth $75K has to worry about somebody stealing it.Keeping the identity of the buyers a secret is reasonable suspicion, Dumbass.
Why would they need to do that?
And, you took offence to a citizen exercising the 5th Amendment Right, and used the example of the democrats hammering him with 500 questions in 360 minutes!
6 hours! 500 questions, and you think Trump is dangerous?
As I said. The prosecution is allowed to offer information to "refresh" the persons memory. And afterward, they would no longer be able to claim they have no recollection, and would have to claim it didn't happen instead.I guess, but since my wife's name is likely not going to be relevant in a criminal proceeding whether it's credible that I remember something as mundane as that seems well, irrelevant. Remembering your dog's name is a far cry from remembering a cell phone conversation or some other detail you might be asked in a criminal trial. It's easily credible that you wouldn't remember things of that nature. What were you doing at 2pm on Jan 15th 2022? Maybe you know but i have no earthly idea.
Phone records indicate how long a line (both ends) were "off hook" for, indicating a coversation length. If you get a call, and the person on the other end doesn't respond to your saying "Hello", as soon as you hang up your end. The call is terminated.Apparently it did. Does your phone hang up if no one is talking on it? Yeah mine either.
So the paintings weren't sold for high dollar amountsBad optics does not mean that there's a crime or even reasonable suspicion for a crime.
You can imagine scenarios all day long. Your imagination does not justify investigation.
You linked to an ornament that is a reproduction of a painting he did. I don't think former Pres Bush is hand painting all those ornaments. I also don't think that Presidents get any money from the gift shops of their Presidential libraries. Aren't those things not for profits? So, he likely donated the rights to reproduce the painting on the ornament for sale.
How does Obama benefit from this sale? Thank youNot at all. Somebody buying something worth $75K has to worry about somebody stealing it.
Obama's Chrysler 300 on sale for $1 million
A Chrysler 300C once leased by President Barack Obama is for sale on eBay with an "opening bid" of $1 million.money.cnn.com
The person who bought Obama's car remains anonymous too.
Actually that's bullshit. If the US law was violated, they just had to show Biden getting the money, like they did for the multiple felony convictions of Paul Manafort.
When a persons memory is in question, then prohibitive questions about his memory are allowed to set a foundation whether his memory, or lack of memory is reasonable.But you can't prove that I do remember. And we aren't talking about mundane shit like that. If the lawyer is worth a shit he'll object to any questions that aren't relevant. So it doesn't matter if I remember that grass is green and my wife's name is Marge unless it's relevant to the case. Criminal trials arent actually like Law and Order.
It was already investigated by Senate Republicans!
If it were Trump, and it was Trump, he would have fought it for 2 years and gone before SCOTUS before having them decide in his favor because the investigation served no legislative purpose. Notice, the Democrats never went after Don Jr.
How do you know Obama didn't place the highest bid? Maybe he misses his old car. And he certainly has the money.How does Obama benefit from this sale? Thank you
Because being the media whore that he is, he would publicize that. But you and I know it wasn't Obama. If Biden were an artist this would be fine but Hunter is not an artist. Pay for play baby. 2023....we'll find out just how much pay for how much play.How do you know Obama didn't place the highest bid? Maybe he misses his old car. And he certainly has the money.
No law against selling paintingsSo the paintings weren't sold for high dollar amounts
He did not get paid extraordinarily well via Burisma
He did not have dealings with China and siphon monies to the "big guy"
LOL
Imagine if you were a tiny bit logical?
So then why are the optics bad?No law against selling paintings
No law against being on the board for Burisma
No law against the dealings with China or giving a cut to "the big guy"
The 4th amendment protects people from your imagination.
Wrong.
Manafort had not bothered to launder the illegal income at all.
He did not have a front company like Burisma Holdings that claimed to just be paying employees for services.
www.pbs.org
Really? They don;'t investigate cases of impeachment?Wrong.
Congress can not and does not really investigate anything.
Bad optics doesn't make a legal case. Optics is PR. Not litigation.So then why are the optics bad?
--- Cannot buy paintings as a front for pay for play
--- Cannot be on the board and receive monies when you have no experience for pay for play
--- Cannot make deals with China to benefit you and your big guy daddy
If the optics are bad why can't further investigation be warranted?
What? I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said it made a legal case, I would like Congress to dive into it and gauge what really happened. Don't believe I am asking a lot. If Joe has nothing to hide then it will be a quick investigation.Bad optics doesn't make a legal case. Optics is PR. Not litigation.
Why did the Trump administration promise to donate the proceeds from foreign governments staying at his hotel? Bad optics.
What is the legislative purpose of this investigation?What? I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said it made a legal case, I would like Congress to dive into it and gauge what really happened. Don't believe I am asking a lot. If Joe has nothing to hide then it will be a quick investigation.
