Impeachment of Joe Biden

[CHEEZY17]

McCarthy lays some of it out here:

[saltydog]

McCarthy lays some of it out here:

He's got the gavel he wanted.

Now it's circus time. Do you actually think the GOP really thinks this is a good idea?

[CHEEZY17]

McCarthy lays some of it out here:

He's got the gavel he wanted.

Now it's circus time. Do you actually think the GOP really thinks this is a good idea?

As youve heard: some do and some dont.
What many arent grasping is that this is simply an Inquiry. Its not an actual impeachment process. Now, it could lead to that but as of now its simply an additional avenue for the exploration. Personally, as Ive said, I think they could have waited a bit but whatever. There is a shitload of circumstantial evidence and they feel its enough to move forward.

[Charliesheen]

What’s the point? It goes nowhere when it hits the senate.

[CHEEZY17]

What’s the point? It goes nowhere when it hits the senate.

The point would be to make public all of the Biden corruption.

[saltydog]

McCarthy lays some of it out here:

He's got the gavel he wanted.

Now it's circus time. Do you actually think the GOP really thinks this is a good idea?

As youve heard: some do and some dont.
What many arent grasping is that this is simply an Inquiry. Its not an actual impeachment process. Now, it could lead to that but as of now its simply an additional avenue for the exploration. Personally, as Ive said, I think they could have waited a bit but whatever. There is a shitload of circumstantial evidence and they feel its enough to move forward.

Do you feel this is a prudent and effective use of taxpayer dollars?

Trump was not only impeached twice but nearly convicted twice. Even Mitt voted to convict!

It's fairly obvious that Trump committed crimes worthy of conviction. Too bad the GOP is scared shitless of him and his based. Spineless as usual.

[CHEEZY17]

McCarthy lays some of it out here:

He's got the gavel he wanted.

Now it's circus time. Do you actually think the GOP really thinks this is a good idea?

As youve heard: some do and some dont.
What many arent grasping is that this is simply an Inquiry. Its not an actual impeachment process. Now, it could lead to that but as of now its simply an additional avenue for the exploration. Personally, as Ive said, I think they could have waited a bit but whatever. There is a shitload of circumstantial evidence and they feel its enough to move forward.

Do you feel this is a prudent and effective use of taxpayer dollars?

Trump was not only impeached twice but nearly convicted twice. Even Mitt voted to convict!

It's fairly obvious that Trump committed crimes worthy of conviction. Too bad the GOP is scared shitless of him and his based. Spineless as usual.

Are you capable of discussing anything political without bringing up Trump? JFC
To answer your question: Yes, I think exposing corruption at our highest levels is important and worth the time and taxpayer dollars.

[dot]

As youve heard: some do and some dont.
What many arent grasping is that this is simply an Inquiry. Its not an actual impeachment process. Now, it could lead to that but as of now its simply an additional avenue for the exploration. Personally, as Ive said, I think they could have waited a bit but whatever. There is a shitload of circumstantial evidence and they feel its enough to move forward.

They feel they "have enough" (spoiler, even they don't think that but dupes at the civilian level have to swallow the company line) to move forward, but even you don't think they have enough.

Unless there is something we dont know about I think this is pretty dumb.
The committee has unearthed lots of circumstantial evidence but I'd rather they have something that packs more of a punch. Maybe they do and thats why theyre doing this. Its probably just for show though.

Just watching the goalposts move going forward is gonna be a delightful song and dance.

Are you capable of discussing anything political without bringing up Trump? JFC
To answer your question: Yes, I think exposing corruption at our highest levels is important and worth the time and taxpayer dollars.

It might surprise you, but Hunter Biden is not in government, highest levels or not.

[CHEEZY17]

As youve heard: some do and some dont.
What many arent grasping is that this is simply an Inquiry. Its not an actual impeachment process. Now, it could lead to that but as of now its simply an additional avenue for the exploration. Personally, as Ive said, I think they could have waited a bit but whatever. There is a shitload of circumstantial evidence and they feel its enough to move forward.

They feel they "have enough" (spoiler, even they don't think that but dupes at the civilian level have to swallow the company line) to move forward, but even you don't think they have enough.

Unless there is something we dont know about I think this is pretty dumb.
The committee has unearthed lots of circumstantial evidence but I'd rather they have something that packs more of a punch. Maybe they do and thats why theyre doing this. Its probably just for show though.

Just watching the goalposts move going forward is gonna be a delightful song and dance.

Are you capable of discussing anything political without bringing up Trump? JFC
To answer your question: Yes, I think exposing corruption at our highest levels is important and worth the time and taxpayer dollars.

It might surprise you, but Hunter Biden is not in government, highest levels or not.

Whats funny is that you think you have some kind of "gotcha" with this. Youre really just exposing your retardation, hoss. Unlike you, I dont run from anything. Yes, the evidence (proof) is circumstantial. I wish they had Shit Show on video admitting everything. They dont. They have what they have which includes testimony, bank documents, shell companies, fake names, proven lies and a pattern of suspicious activities. That would be good enough to move forward on anyone else but you'll defend Shit Show to the death. Good for you loyal soldier.

[dot]

Whats funny is that you think you have some kind of "gotcha" with this. Youre really just exposing your retardation, hoss. Unlike you, I dont run from anything. Yes, the evidence (proof) is circumstantial. I wish they had Shit Show on video admitting everything. They dont. They have what they have which includes testimony, bank documents, shell companies, fake names, proven lies and a pattern of suspicious activities. That would be good enough to move forward on anyone else but you'll defend Shit Show to the death. Good for you loyal soldier.

Remember when Cheez pretended like Joe Biden's corruption was open and shut case proven? Not so much anymore, kinda like there was never anything on Joe the whole time, and yeah, that includes testimony much as you'd like to forget. Like I said, the goalposts moving is gonna be an amazing performance.

[saltydog]

It's not as though the GOP is known for it's productivity.

[Animal]

what's a little bit funny is that, the only reason they put Biden on the ticket was because he was so harmless and had no baggage. but, as it always happens, here comes the payback train.

[Antknot]

what's a little bit funny is that, the only reason they put Biden on the ticket was because he was so harmless and had no baggage. but, as it always happens, here comes the payback train.

Is it true that Obama said don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck stuff up.?

[Animal]

what's a little bit funny is that, the only reason they put Biden on the ticket was because he was so harmless and had no baggage. but, as it always happens, here comes the payback train.

Is it true that Obama said don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck stuff up.?

i have heard that so many times that it must be.

[CHEEZY17]

Whats funny is that you think you have some kind of "gotcha" with this. Youre really just exposing your retardation, hoss. Unlike you, I dont run from anything. Yes, the evidence (proof) is circumstantial. I wish they had Shit Show on video admitting everything. They dont. They have what they have which includes testimony, bank documents, shell companies, fake names, proven lies and a pattern of suspicious activities. That would be good enough to move forward on anyone else but you'll defend Shit Show to the death. Good for you loyal soldier.

Remember when Cheez pretended like Joe Biden's corruption was open and shut case proven? Not so much anymore, kinda like there was never anything on Joe the whole time, and yeah, that includes testimony much as you'd like to forget. Like I said, the goalposts moving is gonna be an amazing performance.

No matter how many times the evidence is posted you just ignore it. Because you are a coward. Yes, I've always thought Shit Show was guilty; because thats where the circumstantial evidence leads.
I acknowledge reality: the evidence obtained so far is circumstantial... but it IS evidence. Would I like more? Sure. I'd love for Shit Show to just come clean one day and admit everything but thats unlikely so circumstantial evidence may be the best we get.
You cant even admit the shell companies, that are literally registered in Delaware, are real
You cant even admit that the subpoenaed bank documents are real
You cant even admit what "Give half my salary to pop." means
You cant even admit the oddity of Shit Show weirdly calling Hunter every time there was a "business meeting" [shakedown] to then be placed on speaker phone about 20 different times
You cant even admit the oddity of Shit Show using fake names when emailing Hunter about the business
among others...

You are a pussy, a coward and a clown show.

[saltydog]

Whats funny is that you think you have some kind of "gotcha" with this. Youre really just exposing your retardation, hoss. Unlike you, I dont run from anything. Yes, the evidence (proof) is circumstantial. I wish they had Shit Show on video admitting everything. They dont. They have what they have which includes testimony, bank documents, shell companies, fake names, proven lies and a pattern of suspicious activities. That would be good enough to move forward on anyone else but you'll defend Shit Show to the death. Good for you loyal soldier.

Remember when Cheez pretended like Joe Biden's corruption was open and shut case proven? Not so much anymore, kinda like there was never anything on Joe the whole time, and yeah, that includes testimony much as you'd like to forget. Like I said, the goalposts moving is gonna be an amazing performance.

No matter how many times the evidence is posted you just ignore it. Because you are a coward. Yes, I've always thought Shit Show was guilty; because thats where the circumstantial evidence leads.
I acknowledge reality: the evidence obtained so far is circumstantial... but it IS evidence. Would I like more? Sure. I'd love for Shit Show to just come clean one day and admit everything but thats unlikely so circumstantial evidence may be the best we get.
You cant even admit the shell companies, that are literally registered in Delaware, are real
You cant even admit that the subpoenaed bank documents are real
You cant even admit what "Give half my salary to pop." means
You cant even admit the oddity of Shit Show weirdly calling Hunter every time there was a "business meeting" [shakedown] to then be placed on speaker phone about 20 different times
You cant even admit the oddity of Shit Show using fake names when emailing Hunter about the business
among others...

You are a pussy, a coward and a clown show.

Congrats!

You've used the words "pussy", "coward", and "clown/shit show" so often to so many around here, it's meaningless.

Take an Ambien and/or a vacation from here for a day or two.

[CHEEZY17]

Whats funny is that you think you have some kind of "gotcha" with this. Youre really just exposing your retardation, hoss. Unlike you, I dont run from anything. Yes, the evidence (proof) is circumstantial. I wish they had Shit Show on video admitting everything. They dont. They have what they have which includes testimony, bank documents, shell companies, fake names, proven lies and a pattern of suspicious activities. That would be good enough to move forward on anyone else but you'll defend Shit Show to the death. Good for you loyal soldier.

Remember when Cheez pretended like Joe Biden's corruption was open and shut case proven? Not so much anymore, kinda like there was never anything on Joe the whole time, and yeah, that includes testimony much as you'd like to forget. Like I said, the goalposts moving is gonna be an amazing performance.

No matter how many times the evidence is posted you just ignore it. Because you are a coward. Yes, I've always thought Shit Show was guilty; because thats where the circumstantial evidence leads.
I acknowledge reality: the evidence obtained so far is circumstantial... but it IS evidence. Would I like more? Sure. I'd love for Shit Show to just come clean one day and admit everything but thats unlikely so circumstantial evidence may be the best we get.
You cant even admit the shell companies, that are literally registered in Delaware, are real
You cant even admit that the subpoenaed bank documents are real
You cant even admit what "Give half my salary to pop." means
You cant even admit the oddity of Shit Show weirdly calling Hunter every time there was a "business meeting" [shakedown] to then be placed on speaker phone about 20 different times
You cant even admit the oddity of Shit Show using fake names when emailing Hunter about the business
among others...

You are a pussy, a coward and a clown show.

Congrats!

You've used the words "pussy", "coward", and "clown/shit show" so often to so many around here, it's meaningless.

Take an Ambien and/or a vacation from here for a day or two.

All of that could easily be stopped but dot is too much of a coward, pussy and clown show. Plus, I enjoy exposing and ridiculing his cowardice.

[saltydog]

Whats funny is that you think you have some kind of "gotcha" with this. Youre really just exposing your retardation, hoss. Unlike you, I dont run from anything. Yes, the evidence (proof) is circumstantial. I wish they had Shit Show on video admitting everything. They dont. They have what they have which includes testimony, bank documents, shell companies, fake names, proven lies and a pattern of suspicious activities. That would be good enough to move forward on anyone else but you'll defend Shit Show to the death. Good for you loyal soldier.

Remember when Cheez pretended like Joe Biden's corruption was open and shut case proven? Not so much anymore, kinda like there was never anything on Joe the whole time, and yeah, that includes testimony much as you'd like to forget. Like I said, the goalposts moving is gonna be an amazing performance.

No matter how many times the evidence is posted you just ignore it. Because you are a coward. Yes, I've always thought Shit Show was guilty; because thats where the circumstantial evidence leads.
I acknowledge reality: the evidence obtained so far is circumstantial... but it IS evidence. Would I like more? Sure. I'd love for Shit Show to just come clean one day and admit everything but thats unlikely so circumstantial evidence may be the best we get.
You cant even admit the shell companies, that are literally registered in Delaware, are real
You cant even admit that the subpoenaed bank documents are real
You cant even admit what "Give half my salary to pop." means
You cant even admit the oddity of Shit Show weirdly calling Hunter every time there was a "business meeting" [shakedown] to then be placed on speaker phone about 20 different times
You cant even admit the oddity of Shit Show using fake names when emailing Hunter about the business
among others...

You are a pussy, a coward and a clown show.

Congrats!

You've used the words "pussy", "coward", and "clown/shit show" so often to so many around here, it's meaningless.

Take an Ambien and/or a vacation from here for a day or two.

All of that could easily be stopped but dot is too much of a coward, pussy and clown show. Plus, I enjoy exposing and ridiculing his cowardice.

You've called me those names multiple times but I thought it was out of love.

[dot]

Hey. Hey. You got any more of that Joe Biden proof? It's ok, Cheez, I know you gotta be pissed that you had to admit you don't have it. Here, peace offering:

[CHEEZY17]

Hey. Hey. You got any more of that Joe Biden proof? It's ok, Cheez, I know you gotta be pissed that you had to admit you don't have it. Here, peace offering:

You can claim there is no proof all you want retard, that doesnt make it true. There are loads of circumstantial evidence that you simply cant/wont acknowledge. You wont admit it exists because you are a coward and a pussy.

[Animal]

Hey. Hey. You got any more of that Joe Biden proof? It's ok, Cheez, I know you gotta be pissed that you had to admit you don't have it. Here, peace offering:

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:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE–ENTIRE CASE 1

There are two types of evidence; namely, direct evidence
and circumstantial evidence.
In this case, the People contend that there is circumstantial
evidence of the defendant's guilt.
Let me explain what constitutes direct and circumstantial
evidence and how they differ.
Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness's
personal knowledge or observation of that fact. A person's guilt
of a charged crime may be proven by direct evidence if, standing
alone, that evidence satisfies a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
of the person's guilt of that crime.
Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from
which a person may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime
may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while
not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let me give you an example of the difference between
direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.
Suppose that in a trial one of the parties is trying to prove
that it was raining on a certain morning. A witness testifies that
on that morning she walked to the subway and as she walked she
saw rain falling, she felt it striking her face, and she heard it
splashing on the sidewalk. That testimony of the witness's
perceptions would be direct evidence that it rained on that
morning.
Suppose, on the other hand, the witness testified that it was
clear as she walked to the subway, that she went into the subway
and got on the train and that while she was on the train, she saw
passengers come in at one station after another carrying wet
umbrellas and wearing wet clothes and raincoats. That testimony
constitutes direct evidence of what the witness observed. And
because an inference that it was raining in the area would flow
naturally, reasonably, and logically from that direct evidence, the
witness's testimony would constitute circumstantial evidence that
it was raining in the area.
The law draws no distinction between circumstantial
evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance.
Either type of evidence may be enough to establish guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case as the
jury finds them to be.

Because circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of
inferences, I will explain the process involved in analyzing that
evidence and what you must do before you may return a verdict
of guilty based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Initially, you must decide, on the basis of all of the evidence,
what facts, if any, have been proven. Any facts upon which an
inference of guilt can be drawn must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.
After you have determined what facts, if any, have been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must decide what
inferences, if any, can be drawn from those facts.
Before you may draw an inference of guilt, however, that
inference must be the only one that can fairly and reasonably be
drawn from the facts, it must be consistent with the proven facts,
and it must flow naturally, reasonably, and logically from them.
Again, it must appear that the inference of guilt is the only
one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and
that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
If there is a reasonable hypothesis from the proven facts
consistent with the defendant's innocence, then you must find the
defendant not guilty.
If the only reasonable inference you find is that the
defendant is guilty of a charged crime, and that inference is
established beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant guilty of that crime.

[saltydog]

Hey. Hey. You got any more of that Joe Biden proof? It's ok, Cheez, I know you gotta be pissed that you had to admit you don't have it. Here, peace offering:

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:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE–ENTIRE CASE 1

There are two types of evidence; namely, direct evidence
and circumstantial evidence.
In this case, the People contend that there is circumstantial
evidence of the defendant's guilt.
Let me explain what constitutes direct and circumstantial
evidence and how they differ.
Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness's
personal knowledge or observation of that fact. A person's guilt
of a charged crime may be proven by direct evidence if, standing
alone, that evidence satisfies a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
of the person's guilt of that crime.
Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from
which a person may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime
may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while
not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let me give you an example of the difference between
direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.
Suppose that in a trial one of the parties is trying to prove
that it was raining on a certain morning. A witness testifies that
on that morning she walked to the subway and as she walked she
saw rain falling, she felt it striking her face, and she heard it
splashing on the sidewalk. That testimony of the witness's
perceptions would be direct evidence that it rained on that
morning.
Suppose, on the other hand, the witness testified that it was
clear as she walked to the subway, that she went into the subway
and got on the train and that while she was on the train, she saw
passengers come in at one station after another carrying wet
umbrellas and wearing wet clothes and raincoats. That testimony
constitutes direct evidence of what the witness observed. And
because an inference that it was raining in the area would flow
naturally, reasonably, and logically from that direct evidence, the
witness's testimony would constitute circumstantial evidence that
it was raining in the area.
The law draws no distinction between circumstantial
evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance.
Either type of evidence may be enough to establish guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case as the
jury finds them to be.

Because circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of
inferences, I will explain the process involved in analyzing that
evidence and what you must do before you may return a verdict
of guilty based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Initially, you must decide, on the basis of all of the evidence,
what facts, if any, have been proven. Any facts upon which an
inference of guilt can be drawn must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.
After you have determined what facts, if any, have been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must decide what
inferences, if any, can be drawn from those facts.
Before you may draw an inference of guilt, however, that
inference must be the only one that can fairly and reasonably be
drawn from the facts, it must be consistent with the proven facts,
and it must flow naturally, reasonably, and logically from them.
Again, it must appear that the inference of guilt is the only
one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and
that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
If there is a reasonable hypothesis from the proven facts
consistent with the defendant's innocence, then you must find the
defendant not guilty.
If the only reasonable inference you find is that the
defendant is guilty of a charged crime, and that inference is
established beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant guilty of that crime.

Legalese Larry over here walking in with the multi colored fonts.

He must be serious.

It's ok to overstate assets 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.

[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.

[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.