Anyone (besides me) old enough to remember Billy Carter?

I have a six pack of this beer. Now worth a whopping $12-20 on eBay.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

I go back to my earlier question- why is this "evidence" only in the hands of the right-wing media?  None of this stuff has been given to the mainstream media for their examination.  It's all in the hands of the right-wing media, and it's all conveniently dribbling out close to election time.   All this stuff is coming from Rudy Giuliani, The New York Post, Western Journal, The Daily Caller, etc.   If they would give a copy of the hard drive to the Washington Post or the New York Times, they'd have a much stronger case.   But the fact that the "evidence" is being withheld from mainstream media outlets makes the whole thing smell.

The FBI has it. That is what is important. It holds evidence of crimes that Hunter committed and evidence that at the minimum proves creepy Joe is a blatant liar and was involved in the dealings of his sons during the time he was the VP. If by chance creepy joe is elected it will serve as the immediate tool of his subsequent impeachment if they decide they would rather kamalatoe to be president sooner the Dems already have planned. If that's possible. Creepy Joe probably should get a food taster if he wins.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

I go back to my earlier question- why is this "evidence" only in the hands of the right-wing media?  None of this stuff has been given to the mainstream media for their examination.  It's all in the hands of the right-wing media, and it's all conveniently dribbling out close to election time.   All this stuff is coming from Rudy Giuliani, The New York Post, Western Journal, The Daily Caller, etc.   If they would give a copy of the hard drive to the Washington Post or the New York Times, they'd have a much stronger case.   But the fact that the "evidence" is being withheld from mainstream media outlets makes the whole thing smell.

I go back to my earlier question- why is this "evidence" only in the hands of the right-wing media?  None of this stuff has been given to the mainstream media for their examination.  It's all in the hands of the right-wing media, and it's all conveniently dribbling out close to election time.   All this stuff is coming from Rudy Giuliani, The New York Post, Western Journal, The Daily Caller, etc.   If they would give a copy of the hard drive to the Washington Post or the New York Times, they'd have a much stronger case.   But the fact that the "evidence" is being withheld from mainstream media outlets makes the whole thing smell.

The FBI has it. That is what is important. It holds evidence of crimes that Hunter committed and evidence that at the minimum proves creepy Joe is a blatant liar and was involved in the dealings of his sons during the time he was the VP. If by chance creepy joe is elected it will serve as the immediate tool of his subsequent impeachment if they decide they would rather kamalatoe to be president sooner the Dems already have planned. If that's possible. Creepy Joe probably should get a food taster if he wins.

Rudy has offered it to them, they don't want it. The reason only the right wing sites are covering it is because no one else will. Rudy also isn't going to just hand it over, but he has invited them to come to him to view it. Other countries are covering this more than the MSM is. So right now, the right wing sites are getting all the coverage and money from the clicks. Maybe the MSM will cover it after he loses.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

---

I go back to my earlier question- why is this "evidence" only in the hands of the right-wing media?  None of this stuff has been given to the mainstream media for their examination.  It's all in the hands of the right-wing media, and it's all conveniently dribbling out close to election time.   All this stuff is coming from Rudy Giuliani, The New York Post, Western Journal, The Daily Caller, etc.   If they would give a copy of the hard drive to the Washington Post or the New York Times, they'd have a much stronger case.   But the fact that the "evidence" is being withheld from mainstream media outlets makes the whole thing smell.

The FBI has it. That is what is important. It holds evidence of crimes that Hunter committed and evidence that at the minimum proves creepy Joe is a blatant liar and was involved in the dealings of his sons during the time he was the VP. If by chance creepy joe is elected it will serve as the immediate tool of his subsequent impeachment if they decide they would rather kamalatoe to be president sooner the Dems already have planned. If that's possible. Creepy Joe probably should get a food taster if he wins.

I haven't seen any evidence that Joe Biden committed any crime.

---

The FBI has it. That is what is important. It holds evidence of crimes that Hunter committed and evidence that at the minimum proves creepy Joe is a blatant liar and was involved in the dealings of his sons during the time he was the VP. If by chance creepy joe is elected it will serve as the immediate tool of his subsequent impeachment if they decide they would rather kamalatoe to be president sooner the Dems already have planned. If that's possible. Creepy Joe probably should get a food taster if he wins.

I haven't seen any evidence that Joe Biden committed any crime.

What was your stance on Russiagate for 3 years? Were you in the "I haven't seen any evidence that Donald Trump committed any crime?"

---

I haven't seen any evidence that Joe Biden committed any crime.

What was your stance on Russiagate for 3 years? Were you in the "I haven't seen any evidence that Donald Trump committed any crime?"

I would ask you the same question.   Are you maintaining the same standard of evidence that you had during the Russia investigation and the Ukraine investigation?

---

I think you guys conflate corruption and criminal. So far, there is nothing criminal about this. It reeks of corruption, though, in the sense that Joe is most likely not using his office purely as it was intended. Only a person with their head buried in the sand can't admit that it is at least plausible that Joe was using his office for personal gain, either for himself (unproven) or for his family (far more likely).

---

And, yes, the answer to your question is that the MSM just has decided not to cover this scandal. It's that simple.

---

Twitter has now suspended the account of Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Mark Morgan over his comments concerning border fences.

The social media barons have pushed all of their chips to the center of the table with this election. If their gamble is wrong there’s going to be hell to pay.

---

I go back to my earlier question- why is this "evidence" only in the hands of the right-wing media?  None of this stuff has been given to the mainstream media for their examination.  It's all in the hands of the right-wing media, and it's all conveniently dribbling out close to election time.   All this stuff is coming from Rudy Giuliani, The New York Post, Western Journal, The Daily Caller, etc.   If they would give a copy of the hard drive to the Washington Post or the New York Times, they'd have a much stronger case.   But the fact that the "evidence" is being withheld from mainstream media outlets makes the whole thing smell.

Are you certain they don't have it and aren't just censoring and mention of it like Twitter?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

A bunch of this stuff is visible for all to see all over the internet. If you want it, it is there.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

I think you guys conflate corruption and criminal. So far, there is nothing criminal about this. It reeks of corruption, though, in the sense that Joe is most likely not using his office purely as it was intended. Only a person with their head buried in the sand can't admit that it is at least plausible that Joe was using his office for personal gain, either for himself (unproven) or for his family (far more likely).

---

And, yes, the answer to your question is that the MSM just has decided not to cover this scandal. It's that simple.

If Joe was using his status as VP to arrange meetings with foreign diplomats and Hunter in return for monetary compensation that would be paid to Joe then it is criminal. That doesn’t include the fee Hunter implies was paid to Joe and how that relates to money laundering. Obviously, if Joe is getting a cut of the laundered money, then that too would be illegal. 

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think they’ll charge Joe with anything, but if he’s an accomplice then this goes beyond just corruption.

---

I think you guys conflate corruption and criminal. So far, there is nothing criminal about this. It reeks of corruption, though, in the sense that Joe is most likely not using his office purely as it was intended. Only a person with their head buried in the sand can't admit that it is at least plausible that Joe was using his office for personal gain, either for himself (unproven) or for his family (far more likely).

---

And, yes, the answer to your question is that the MSM just has decided not to cover this scandal. It's that simple.

If Joe was using his status as VP to arrange meetings with foreign diplomats and Hunter in return for monetary compensation that would be paid to Joe then it is criminal. That doesn’t include the fee Hunter implies was paid to Joe and how that relates to money laundering. Obviously, if Joe is getting a cut of the laundered money, then that too would be illegal. 

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think they’ll charge Joe with anything, but if he’s an accomplice then this goes beyond just corruption.

If there was any actual evidence of Joe Biden "using his status as VP to arrange meetings with foreign diplomats and Hunter in return for monetary compensation," we would have seen it by now.  

One other correction to what you said: "...the fee Hunter implies was paid to Joe..." if you're talking about the "10% for TBG...," obviously there was no fee paid to Joe Biden because that whole deal went up in smoke.  No one got paid on that deal.  

Joe Biden has released his tax returns, he has filed financial disclosure forms, and he made no money other than a book deal and speaking fees.  Meanwhile, we have a President who refuses to release his tax returns, and owes hundreds of millions to unknown entities.  Why aren't you guys talking about that?

---

Can anyone tell me the last time Joe Biden was audited?

---

Tucker Carlson now says UPS has found those missing Hunter Biden documents.  But he says he is still evaluating them.  

Another "bombshell" that looks like it's going to turn out to be a dud.

Except, of course, now he has a new conspiracy theory to talk about.  

Also, now he's saying he doesn't want to talk about Hunter Biden any more.  

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-c...nter-biden

---

A bunch of this stuff is visible for all to see all over the internet. If you want it, it is there.

And of course, if it's on the internet, it must be true.

---

A bunch of this stuff is visible for all to see all over the internet. If you want it, it is there.

And of course, if it's on the internet, it must be true.

If you say so. I did not . But I will. From what I have seen and read I definitely believe it to be true.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

If there was any actual evidence of Joe Biden "using his status as VP to arrange meetings with foreign diplomats and Hunter in return for monetary compensation," we would have seen it by now.  

One other correction to what you said: "...the fee Hunter implies was paid to Joe..." if you're talking about the "10% for TBG...," obviously there was no fee paid to Joe Biden because that whole deal went up in smoke.  No one got paid on that deal.  

Joe Biden has released his tax returns, he has filed financial disclosure forms, and he made no money other than a book deal and speaking fees.  Meanwhile, we have a President who refuses to release his tax returns, and owes hundreds of millions to unknown entities.  Why aren't you guys talking about that?

I agree that we've probably seen the worst of whatever's on the laptop (in regards to Joe). My point is that this is more than enough probable cause to open an investigation into where the money came from and by whom. It should also lead into determining if Joe received money as a result of Hunter's business deals. I don't think it's difficult for rich people to hide money or spend money that was never officially given to them. We know Joe flew Hunter around the world as he picked up deals from everywhere. I think most people would look at flying to China on Air Force 2 and picking up millions from Chinese-backed banks ten days later would be more than enough considered circumstantial evidence. 

I don't think any one thing that's been mentioned is enough to charge anyone without more evidence. But I don't think this should be an easy thing for Biden supporters to dismiss. Add in Bobulinski and there's more here than anything about Trump's tax returns. A billionaire owing millions isn't as concerning as selling out to foreign nationals. Especially when that billionaire owns numerous expensive properties including Mar-a-Lago which is estimated to be worth $160M alone. As you say, if there was anything there, we would have seen it by now. 

Hunter also texted Bobulinski telling Bobulinski that Joe was making key decisions in their business dealings with China. Bobulinski confirmed that the "Big Guy" was Joe, and it doesn't matter if the deal fell through if Joe solicited payment for what is suggested there. That's just an example of how these things played out. Interest-free loans from the Chinese, millions from the Moscow mayor's wife, etc. Do we really thing Joe isn't making a cut of it?

---

If there was any actual evidence of Joe Biden "using his status as VP to arrange meetings with foreign diplomats and Hunter in return for monetary compensation," we would have seen it by now.  

One other correction to what you said: "...the fee Hunter implies was paid to Joe..." if you're talking about the "10% for TBG...," obviously there was no fee paid to Joe Biden because that whole deal went up in smoke.  No one got paid on that deal.  

Joe Biden has released his tax returns, he has filed financial disclosure forms, and he made no money other than a book deal and speaking fees.  Meanwhile, we have a President who refuses to release his tax returns, and owes hundreds of millions to unknown entities.  Why aren't you guys talking about that?

I agree that we've probably seen the worst of whatever's on the laptop (in regards to Joe). My point is that this is more than enough probable cause to open an investigation into where the money came from and by whom. It should also lead into determining if Joe received money as a result of Hunter's business deals. I don't think it's difficult for rich people to hide money or spend money that was never officially given to them. We know Joe flew Hunter around the world as he picked up deals from everywhere. I think most people would look at flying to China on Air Force 2 and picking up millions from Chinese-backed banks ten days later would be more than enough considered circumstantial evidence. 

I don't think any one thing that's been mentioned is enough to charge anyone without more evidence. But I don't think this should be an easy thing for Biden supporters to dismiss. Add in Bobulinski and there's more here than anything about Trump's tax returns. A billionaire owing millions isn't as concerning as selling out to foreign nationals. Especially when that billionaire owns numerous expensive properties including Mar-a-Lago which is estimated to be worth $160M alone. As you say, if there was anything there, we would have seen it by now. 

Hunter also texted Bobulinski telling Bobulinski that Joe was making key decisions in their business dealings with China. Bobulinski confirmed that the "Big Guy" was Joe, and it doesn't matter if the deal fell through if Joe solicited payment for what is suggested there. That's just an example of how these things played out. Interest-free loans from the Chinese, millions from the Moscow mayor's wife, etc. Do we really thing Joe isn't making a cut of it?

The issue is, US prosecutors can't just investigate anything that looks fishy or rotten to them. We have a US Code, and US prosecutors can only investigate where they have probable cause to believe a violation of one or more statutes occurred.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There are several ways to launder money back to Joe and the most likely ones was Hunter covering all of Joe's expenses. That still may not be illegal by itself, but where the money came from would be. Taxes don't show all your expenses and who paid them, so Joe gets to claim he hasn't gotten any money.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

---