Impeachment of Joe Biden

[Animal]

Vincent LaGuardia Gambini successfully took down a case loaded with circumstantial evidence, with no actual proof.

Circumstantial evidence is a legal way to use speculation for probable cause. It must be able to lead to conclusive proof.

In a prior life, while serving on a jury, the case ended when the burden of proof was not met. Otherwise, legally it's hogwash.

admit it, stupid. you fucked up and are just spewing bullshit to support your dear leader.

I did? Your projection skills are impressive.

Go to court with a mountain of "circumstantial evidence" and let us know how it works out.

You'll be shamed out of the discovery process by lunchtime.

Keep up the Jim Jordan cosplay though.

[saltydog]

Vincent LaGuardia Gambini successfully took down a case loaded with circumstantial evidence, with no actual proof.

Circumstantial evidence is a legal way to use speculation for probable cause. It must be able to lead to conclusive proof.

In a prior life, while serving on a jury, the case ended when the burden of proof was not met. Otherwise, legally it's hogwash.

admit it, stupid. you fucked up and are just spewing bullshit to support your dear leader.

I did? Your projection skills are impressive.

Go to court with a mountain of "circumstantial evidence" and let us know how it works out.

You'll be shamed out of the discovery process by lunchtime.

Keep up the Jim Jordan cosplay though.

Thanks. I aim to entertain.

[dot]

First, how about we establish that you are a complete moron when it comes to how evidence works? How about that?

You have said several times that circumstantial evidence is of no value. Your stupid friend Salty has even suggested that circumstantial evidence would get you laughed out of a court room. So, in the spirit of pointing out how stupid you are, give this a read:

Wrong. I have never once said that circumstantial evidence has no value. So that's on you for setting up a strawman to argue against which is what you did for the entire post. The problem is not that circumstantial evidence has no value, it's that your circumstantial evidence does not tie Joe Biden to crimes. Over and over, I've asked Cheezy to produce the evidence that ties Joe Biden to what his son Hunter Biden did. He never has, and it recently was revealed as to why that is. He doesn't have any, that's why he wishes his handlers had more, that this move is stupid, and while he's still on board he knows that there's no basis for it except that Biden has to be dirty because Trump was shown to be dirty. Now clearly y'all have a problem with what Hunter did, despite the obvious hypocrisy and parallels from the supposed Biden crime family to the actual Trump crime family. But let's leave that aside for a bit, because it's a whole different discussion why you care so much when it's a (D) not an (R). The problem remains that all the things your reps have dug up, by their own words, do not tie Joe Biden to the misdeeds. Hunter Biden? Sure, he's all over it, and you can nail him to the wall for the umpteenth time because I don't care except that he's a civilian being punished for political reasons. And also for the umpteenth time, you guys are not satisfied with that, because Hunter is not the end goal. You want Joe Biden, the guy who beat your boy. That's the sole reason for this, because government corruption doesn't matter to you or your reps unless it's done by the other party. Again, different discussion, but it's obvious why this is being done.

I feel bad for you guys, but you brought it on yourselves. You took a ride on the Trump train and this is what you've devolved to having to do, defending his criminality and asking for more. It must be exhausting moving those goalposts constantly, but keep at it. For entertainment's sake.

[CHEEZY17]

First, how about we establish that you are a complete moron when it comes to how evidence works? How about that?

You have said several times that circumstantial evidence is of no value. Your stupid friend Salty has even suggested that circumstantial evidence would get you laughed out of a court room. So, in the spirit of pointing out how stupid you are, give this a read:

Wrong. I have never once said that circumstantial evidence has no value. So that's on you for setting up a strawman to argue against which is what you did for the entire post. The problem is not that circumstantial evidence has no value, it's that your circumstantial evidence does not tie Joe Biden to crimes. Over and over, I've asked Cheezy to produce the evidence that ties Joe Biden to what his son Hunter Biden did. He never has, and it recently was revealed as to why that is. He doesn't have any, that's why he wishes his handlers had more, that this move is stupid, and while he's still on board he knows that there's no basis for it except that Biden has to be dirty because Trump was shown to be dirty. Now clearly y'all have a problem with what Hunter did, despite the obvious hypocrisy and parallels from the supposed Biden crime family to the actual Trump crime family. But let's leave that aside for a bit, because it's a whole different discussion why you care so much when it's a (D) not an (R). The problem remains that all the things your reps have dug up, by their own words, do not tie Joe Biden to the misdeeds. Hunter Biden? Sure, he's all over it, and you can nail him to the wall for the umpteenth time because I don't care except that he's a civilian being punished for political reasons. And also for the umpteenth time, you guys are not satisfied with that, because Hunter is not the end goal. You want Joe Biden, the guy who beat your boy. That's the sole reason for this, because government corruption doesn't matter to you or your reps unless it's done by the other party. Again, different discussion, but it's obvious why this is being done.

I feel bad for you guys, but you brought it on yourselves. You took a ride on the Trump train and this is what you've devolved to having to do, defending his criminality and asking for more. It must be exhausting moving those goalposts constantly, but keep at it. For entertainment's sake.

Thanks for proving you dont understand circumstantial evidence.

[dot]

Thanks for proving you dont understand circumstantial evidence.

Thanks for admitting you don't have evidence against Joe Biden.

[CHEEZY17]

Thanks for proving you dont understand circumstantial evidence.

I dont understand what "circumstantial evidence" means so I'm going to continue to claim there is no evidence at all.

Yes, we know.

[dot]

Seems you need a timeout.

[saltydog]

LOL

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-impe ... rt-1828093