Compelling evidence exists that Dad flew Hunter to China on AF2, where he made a multibil deal with some executives tied to the CCP, and that Dad met with several of Hunter's 'business partners'.
Beautiful Blue Wall
- Thread starter indy35
- Start date
And if proven that is evidence of no statutory violation whatsoever.
Every President/VPs kids have flown with them. A VP having a meal with private business partners of his kid? Could be terrible if somebody knew what was said, but on its face purely, it’s a big nothing.
So that brings me back to the question of whether you’d be comfortable immunizing Hunter Biden for compelled testimony. Because there’s no way and no precedent to even attempt to extradite a Chinese national for compelled testimony.
The only way this could possibly happen is after the dems get rid of Joe, the voters get rid of Joe, or Joe falls down the steps of AF1 and kills himself (or strangles himself trying to put a jacket on). While Joe is still in office, there is no chance Hunter will face serious charges.
Despite your belief in its excellence as proven by tv shows, the FBI has had the laptop for 3 years and done nothing but cover it up.
In my opinion, you are avoiding the substantive question.
To add any evidentiary substance to your theory, somebody has to testify that was in the room when something bad happened. Merely a conversation about the potential for some doing something bad is nowhere near enough. Who is that somebody that can testify?
Bobulinski is willing to testify - has testified - that he was in the room when corrupt deals were discussed. He has emails from Hunter to support that testimony.
Other than being a drug-addled sociopath (while somehow still the smartest guy Joe knows), why would Hunter agree to immunization when he can just sit it out until Dad drops from the picture?
Yes! That Tony guy has said he was in the room when Hunter and Joe discussed Hunter’s business deals.
That is not evidence that Joe actually did anything wrong. Somebody has to testify that was involved with Joe actually taking some proactive action, not just hearing about possible dirty deeds.
But taken with all the supporting evidence of emails and so forth, might it not be sufficient?
If you are arguing that Joe is going to get away with being the most corrupt (and incompetent) president of our lifetimes, I have never doubted that. The establishment DoJ/FBI system is strongly rigged in his favor, obviously, or he wouldn't be president.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is no small task.
Emails that talk about what someone else is doing without the subject of the investigation having been caught doing any wrongdoing? That’s hearsay.
People have been convicted even when the missing body is not found.
But no, I don't think it will be easy. In fact, I think it is likely impossible with the entrenched, corrupt DOJ/FBI faction calling all the shots.
Oh lord, everything isn’t a fix.
Has has been said ad nauseam here, the Trump administration with his appointed attorney general couldn’t put the case together either.
People get convicted without finding the body when there is forensic evidence, not hearsay witness testimony.
But some things are.
Has been said ad nauseum incorrectly. The FBI didn't get the laptop until Dec 2019. I am sure it was child's play for corrupt actors (such as the guy who suddenly retired recently) to sit on it for some rule or another to keep Barr from acting on it.
These guys, some claiming to be attorneys, disagree.
Can someone be convicted of murder purely on circumstantial evidence?
Answer (1 of 9): It does not require a lawyer to give an opinion on the subject of circumstantial evidence, so I shall give this question a shot as a lay person: The answer is “yes”, a person can be convicted of murder on the basis of circumstantial evidence even where there is no direct evidence...
Circumstantial evidence can absolutely be the basis for a conviction! But what you’re describing here is inadmissible hearsay, and at this point not much evidence of any type.
Why would it be inadmissible when it is supported by evidence Hunter provided in his laptop, and probably other evidence we don't know about?
Against Hunter? Sure.
An email by Hunter to someone else effectively saying “Joe is involved” would be inadmissible against Joe.
A quick working definition for you:
- Hearsay is any statement made by the declarant at a time or place other than while he or she is testifying at the trial or hearing that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
- Hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it is specifically allowed by an exception in the rules of evidence or another statute.
Taken with the testimony from Tony about meeting with Joe twice, why would it be 'inadmissible'?
Tony could testify under oath about what was said when he was meeting with Joe.
Hunter could testify under oath about his emailed statement(s). If he took the fifth his testimony could be compelled under immunity. If you eliminate someone’s right against self-incrimination by immunizing them they are compelled to testify.
That’s why I asked if you’d be willing to immunize Hunter to compel testimony.
Hunter can testify by lying. Why wouldn't he?
This is all hypothetical. DOJ will not move against Hunter. Our corrupt AG just last week called for a special prosecutor for Trump because of a conflict of interest with a candidate for president - yet has an even great conflict in investigating the son of a sitting prez, his boss, for which he has not called for a special prosecutor.
The system is rigged, and I suspect you agree with that but don't want to say it because that is what Trump says.
I’m telling you the truth as I see it:
The system has some bad people, but it is not rigged.
Trump says it’s rigged because Trump is a big fat baby that lashes out when he can’t get his way.
No, you just said in the other thread that the 'truth as you see it' is, nobody cares so it is not worth investigating.
It is evidence that Joe did something wrong, it just doesn’t prove that Joe did something wrong
“Beautiful Blue Wall” has as many holes in it as the Southern border. Just ask Nancy.
Last edited:
This will never get worn out. You thought he was going to overturn the election. Hell, he’s going on about the midterms now.. You have to be a real idiot to think a pillow schlepper is going to overturn an election and you proudly raised your hand to that on here. It will always be relevant, especially when you try to talk someone down on here.
Couple things: never once did I say he was going to overturn the election, which I’ve made clear multiple times. If you think so, please go find it. Second, when did I talk someone down on here?
You were convinced he had the goods to overturn it. And anytime you try to lecture someone else on here, you’re talking down. Let’s face it, when you put your eggs in my MyPillow guy’s basket, you don’t get the runway to tell anyone else if they’re right or wrong, etc.
I’m sorry your brain isn’t developed enough to understand what was actually said and what you continue blabbering on about. And I ask again, who do I “try to lecture” on here? I think I’m fairly civil and willing to debate with people who have a different perspective, just not with clowns like you because you never have anything even remotely intelligent or productive to add.
You spent weeks pimping Mike Lindell. You even pushed some bullshit about Italian weather satellites changing votes.
Never denied that I thought he had something, as I’ve said many times, I thought it was too bizarre to not be true. I was wrong and I owned that immediately. Still have a better batting average than the idiots who bought the wet market theory, the very fine people hoax, the inject bleach nonsense, the vaccines are safe and effective, Hunter’s laptop is Russian disinformation, the Russian bounty hoax, Trump and Russian collusion, believe men can be women and women can be men, that men can have babies, and I’m sure I’m missing several others. So who are the idiots?
Last edited:
You left out a few things, but overall a pretty good list for Mr. Scott to ponder in case he had not heard of them.
Happy Thanksgiving...
This post is why I’ll forever make fun of you. Let’s go through the list:
-The wet market : hasn’t been proven
-very fine people: he said it
-inject bleach: he said disinfectant. I guess take this as your win
-the vaccines are safe and effective. It’s been proven
-Hunters laptop is Russian disinformation: what? I’m sure Mike Lindell will get to the bottom of it
-Russian bounty hoax: inconclusive either way (although a poor thing to campaign on)
-Trump and Russian collusion: Russia interfered. Collusion? Debatable but no one ever concluded there wasn’t either
-The trans stuff: dude just stfu. Especially after the shooting a few days ago
Your post, by the way, is exactly what I was I referencing when I said you talk down. It’s not that I care that you attempt it, but you literally thought Mike Lindell was going to get the election overturned. As one of the dumbest people in the room, you should just keep quiet.
Last edited:
The fact you keep doubling down on all of those that have been proven false speaks to either your ignorance or unwavering obedience to the whacko left. Read the transcripts jackass, or if you’re too lazy to actually do some research, I can pull them up for you to show you exactly what trump said. And yes, you clowns kept arguing hunters laptop wasn’t legit and everyone now knows that it is. And the fact you’re too simple minded to comprehend that people can disagree with the trans ideologies (proven false by science btw) but also be disgusted by the shooting in Colorado also speaks to your level of ignorance. The two are not mutually exclusive, well at least not for those of us with something more than a dog dick for a brain.
