What you must believe to think Biden is innocent.

[Lisa558]

It is much easier than that. Not on "all of these people", only a portion of it on "Joe Biden" himself.

Actually, not even that. Joe Biden did not have to receive any money himself to be guilty of bribery. He helped to create a multimillion dollar legacy for his family.

 

[bodecea]

Yup. If I go to bed when the grass is green and wake up to a layer of snow covering the lawn, I can assume it snowed. I don’t have to SEE it. That is called circumstantial evidence and it can be quite strong.

What charges is President Biden up on?

 

[White 6]

are you suggesting emails aren't evidence? Are you suggesting that first hand knowledge of a business partner isn't evidence? What is it then?

In order to believe that Biden is innocent of taking bribes for favorable foreign policy decisions, we must ignore his own words, his son’s text messages and emails, all the “spontaneous” meetings, all the whistleblowers and witnesses, and the need for more than 20 shell companies to launder and distribute loot among family members who have no demonstrable skills. Finally, we must believe that $20 million — and probably much more — has been lavished on all of these people except the only one possessed of the power to make it rain.

I have heard the emails, and also heard Biden business partner denying Joe was involved in the business of Hunter and the partner. Looks like partisan BS, so far.

 

[bodecea]

You can charge them based on circumstantial evidence, and get a conviction based on the same, and we already have plenty of it.

And the charges President Biden is up for?

 

[Frankenstein]

You mean most people still require evidence in court and out number you here and in most places in the country by a wide margin and you feel burned by the fact as this nagging need for actual evidence has not been eradicated in the post trump era? You guys are failures.

The evidence will be presented, to know what you know from reports, and suppose his innocence is appalling

 

[Billiejeens]

Actually, not even that. Joe Biden did not have to receive any money himself to be guilty of bribery. He helped to create a multimillion dollar legacy for his family.

The 1cent'er should -

Read The Statute.

 

[bodecea]

Oh, the irony….. ^^^

Indeed, the irony of MAGAts...or is it the stupidity?

 

[Billiejeens]

The evidence will be presented, to know what you know from reports, and suppose his innocence is appalling

It's his team.

 

[bodecea]

The evidence will be presented, to know what you know from reports, and suppose his innocence is appalling

So much for innocent until PROVEN guilty with MAGAts, eh?

 

[Frankenstein]

So much for innocent until PROVEN guilty with MAGAts, eh?

playing by your playbook beeeeeyotch!

 

[bodecea]

Bobolinsky “testified” in front of Tucker Carlson. Lets see him do it under oath.
Lets see any 10 percent of profit from Burisma being sent to anyone
Lets see millions of dollars that Joe Biden can’t explain

You neglected to mention that Devon Archer testified under oath that at no time did he or his associates talk business in any of those 20+ calls

Under oath is the key

 

[Donald H]

I don't doubt the Bidens have their hands in shit they shouldn't. The problem is the Republican Party's incompetence to prove any of it. Maybe the Democrats are better at weeding out malfeasance in their political opposition or maybe the Bidens are just smarter than the Trumps when it comes to covering their tracks.

No, the problem is that the Republican party won't compromise their country's foreign policy crimes for which Biden is responsible.

Didn't MTG already threaten to step out of bounds and then she had to be taken back under control?

 

[nomadic5]

In order to believe Biden is taking bribes….

You must see evidence that he was actually sent money
You must see unexplained money in Biden’s accounts
You must see specific actions that Biden took in return

Until you have that, you have no evidence of a crime

from the site/link

Mr. Sams hasn’t done his boss any favors here. In one stroke he has confirmed the incestuous relationship that exists between the White House and the media while preemptively destroying the credibility of any defense the latter might produce on Biden’s behalf.

 

[my2¢]

Actually, not even that. Joe Biden did not have to receive any money himself to be guilty of bribery. He helped to create a multimillion dollar legacy for his family.

Good point. They could prove in exchange for money his actions as V.P. attempted to influence our government.

 

[Nostra]

I have heard the emails, and also heard Biden business partner denying Joe was involved in the business of Hunter and the partner. Looks like partisan BS, so far.

Bobolinsky says Tater was involved.

 

[BlindBoo]

It was not US policy -

Was not the policy of the Obama administration.

I know that you will deny that - Your Cult went hard on this one., because it is Joe who will say anything and need people to clean up behind him.

Recap - Official US policy under Obama was that Ukraine had cleaned up its' corruption to the point that they were to receive the loan guarantees.

Biden withheld money to Ukraine until they agreed to fire the person looking into Burisma at Burisma's request.
Not in dispute.
Documented.

Of course you're lying.

"They’ve pointed in particular to Biden’s move in March 2016 to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who had previously led an investigation into Burisma’s owner."

Biden was representing the official position of the U.S. government, a position that was also supported by other Western governments and many in Ukraine, who accused Shokin of being soft on corruption.

Corruption has continued to fester in Ukraine. In May, the country’s new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, came into office with no political experience but with bold promises to put an end to the corrupt practices.

Around this time, Giuliani began reaching out to Zelenskiy and his aides to press for a government investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden’s role with the company.

In a Fox News interview on May 19, Trump claimed the former Ukrainian prosecutor “was after” Joe Biden’s son and that was why the former vice president demanded he be fired. There is no evidence of this.

Trump's claims about the Bidens, explained

There's been no evidence of wrongdoing by either then-Vice President Joe Biden or his son Hunter Biden.

www.pbs.org

Why Was Ukraine's Top Prosecutor Fired? The Issue At The Heart Of The Dispute Gripping Washington

U.S. President Donald Trump asserts that Joe Biden pushed for the ouster of Ukraine’s chief prosecutor to quash a probe into a Burisma, a gas company with Biden's son on its board. Officials and anti-corruption activists in Kyiv say Prosecutor-General Viktor Shokin had shelved the case long...

www.rferl.org

 

[DBA]

Thanks to Republicans, a smoking gun is necessary to convict someone in impeachment.

(Preponderance of evidence is the standard for civil law, beyond a reasonable doubt is for criminal law and considerably higher bar to reach)

Ok, wasn't sure on the standard here, but "reasonable" is the key word here. It is far from reasonable that Hunter would be paid the sums of money he was paid with literally no results and no benefit for the companies involved. Were they getting business deals we don't know about because a Biden was on their board? If so, please point to those specific deals. There has to be a real monetary gain for these companies for it to make any sense whatsoever.

Joe was on 20+ phone calls with Hunter's business partners, that is actual access, not illusionary as the left has attempted to proclaim.

I might also add that is quite funny how the story continues to change as more evidence becomes available. First, it was that the laptop was not Hunter's. After that was debunked, the story changed to the chain of custody was a problem. Next, it was that Joe had no knowledge of his son's business deals nor any contact with any of Hunter's business partners. As evidence to the contrary came to light, the story has changed to it doesn't matter, they just talked about the weather and such. An uninterested jury member would very likely find the changing of the story, along with the other evidence submitted, a bit alarming. It would be quite reasonable for them to feel that way, don't you think?

 

[DBA]

Bobolinsky “testified” in front of Tucker Carlson. Lets see him do it under oath.
Lets see any 10 percent of profit from Burisma being sent to anyone
Lets see millions of dollars that Joe Biden can’t explain

You neglected to mention that Devon Archer testified under oath that at no time did he or his associates talk business in any of those 20+ calls

Right, Joe just got on the phone to talk about the weather. He didn't know who he was talking to nor did he know the reason he was talking to them in the first place.

 

[DBA]

I have heard the emails, and also heard Biden business partner denying Joe was involved in the business of Hunter and the partner. Looks like partisan BS, so far.

Joe was involved. Would you routinely get on phone calls with your son's business partners whom you don't even know just to shoot the breeze? It makes little sense. Be honest.

 

[White 6]

The evidence will be presented, to know what you know from reports, and suppose his innocence is appalling

No. Just means I have been on multiple juries and believe in the actual process, rather than conviction in the partisan tabloids.