How much longer will Joe Biden's Seargent Schultz defense continue to go on. I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing

[Paul158]

My apologies to the younger guys who may not have heard of sergeant Shultz from the Hogans Heroes.

[mspart]

Great show@!!.   The people of West Germany did not like it to be fair.  I doubt the people of East Germany ever saw it. 

mspart

[VakAttack]

A truly incredible shift from "we have all this damning evidence" to "just believe us" from the right win of American politics on this issue.

 

"Look, he committed this crime.  Can we prove it?  No.  Do we have any actual evidence?  Also no.  But trust us."

Y'all's insistence that Joe HAS to have known something that his drug addict son was doing

1.  Belies reality.

2.  Ignores the way drug addicts typically behave.

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

A truly incredible shift from "we have all this damning evidence" to "just believe us" from the right win of American politics on this issue.

 

"Look, he committed this crime.  Can we prove it?  No.  Do we have any actual evidence?  Also no.  But trust us."

Y'all's insistence that Joe HAS to have known something that his drug addict son was doing

1.  Belies reality.

2.  Ignores the way drug addicts typically behave.

His son was riding on Airforce 2 to go do his "business."

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

His son was riding on Airforce 2 to go do his "business."

Ok.  Vice President's son traveled with him.  Everything else is just supposition.  That's not how proving something works.  Just because the House Oversight Committee says something happened or insinuates it doesn't make it true.  They actually need to produce evidence to prove something.  For instance, if my parents buy plane tickets for my whole family to go to Colorado, and I happen to buy drugs in Colorado, my parents aren't involved in my business or in the crime.

[Paul158]

14 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

A truly incredible shift from "we have all this damning evidence" to "just believe us" from the right win of American politics on this issue.

 

"Look, he committed this crime.  Can we prove it?  No.  Do we have any actual evidence?  Also no.  But trust us."

Y'all's insistence that Joe HAS to have known something that his drug addict son was doing

1.  Belies reality.

2.  Ignores the way drug addicts typically behave.

I'm sorry I didn't realize Joe was a drug addict.

[Paul158]

11 minutes ago, ionel said:

His son was riding on Airforce 2 to go do his "business."

ionel. You know they were just talking about the weather. C'mon man!!

[VakAttack]

Truly incredible to watch the same people see Trump charged with actual crimes multiple times with tons of evidence presented cover there eyes and stick their fingers in their ears but also insist that Joe Biden is a participant in crimes with no evidence presented and no charges

[Paul158]

1 minute ago, VakAttack said:

Truly incredible to watch the same people see Trump charged with actual crimes multiple times with tons of evidence presented cover there eyes and stick their fingers in their ears but also insist that Joe Biden is a participant in crimes with no evidence presented and no charges

I'm not voting for Trump. Its DeSantis and Kristi Noem for me. If Trump is found guilty so be it. Next question.

[ionel]

7 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Truly incredible to watch the same people see Trump charged with actual crimes multiple times with tons of evidence presented cover there eyes and stick their fingers in their ears but also insist that Joe Biden is a participant in crimes with no evidence presented and no charges

Two things can be true at the same time.  Incredible how some (attorneys) stick their fingers in their ear and say it can't be true.   

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

Two things can be true at the same time.  Incredible how some (attorneys) stick their fingers in their ear and say it can't be true.   

I didn't say it can't be true.  This is false.  I said no evidence of these allegations has actually be presented, just benign facts included with innuendo to make them seem more substantive than they are.

[mspart]

16 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Ok.  Vice President's son traveled with him.  Everything else is just supposition.  That's not how proving something works.  Just because the House Oversight Committee says something happened or insinuates it doesn't make it true.  They actually need to produce evidence to prove something.  For instance, if my parents buy plane tickets for my whole family to go to Colorado, and I happen to buy drugs in Colorado, my parents aren't involved in my business or in the crime.

It has been proved that Joe lied about:

a)  Not knowing anything about Hunter's business dealings.   Archer's testimony refutes this categorically.

b)  Hunter not making any money in China.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/01/biden-said-his-son-earned-no-money-china-his-son-says-otherwise/

I think you are right that the "smoking gun" or evidence regarding Joe has not been revealed.   So that should stop the investigation right?   That's how an investigator would treat this right?  Whatever happened to keep digging until you find something.   Perhaps that's what you don't want to happen. 

Archer said Joe didn't say much of substance while in the meetings with Hunter's partners, and that he didn't have to.   The access to the VP was the point, not the content of the meetings.   This is all very clearly established. 

The question for Joe is why did he lie about a) and b) above?    What was the point?   To a normal not lawyer type, it looks like he was hiding information he did not want known.   Why else lie about it?  I'm not sure what it looks like to a lawyer type?   I'm sure different lawyers will have different opinions on it.   Perhaps you being a lawyer can answer that.   Lessee - He lied because he could and there really was no reason to do it, nothing to see here folks.  Or, he didn't lie and is still not lying.    You would have to prove that one I guess. 

mspart

[Paul158]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

It has been proved that Joe lied about:

a)  Not knowing anything about Hunter's business dealings.   Archer's testimony refutes this categorically.

b)  Hunter not making any money in China.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/01/biden-said-his-son-earned-no-money-china-his-son-says-otherwise/

I think you are right that the "smoking gun" or evidence regarding Joe has not been revealed.   So that should stop the investigation right?   That's how an investigator would treat this right?  Whatever happened to keep digging until you find something.   Perhaps that's what you don't want to happen. 

Archer said Joe didn't say much of substance while in the meetings with Hunter's partners, and that he didn't have to.   The access to the VP was the point, not the content of the meetings.   This is all very clearly established. 

The question for Joe is why did he lie about a) and b) above?    What was the point?   To a normal not lawyer type, it looks like he was hiding information he did not want known.   Why else lie about it?  I'm not sure what it looks like to a lawyer type?   I'm sure different lawyers will have different opinions on it.   Perhaps you being a lawyer can answer that.   Lessee - He lied because he could and there really was no reason to do it, nothing to see here folks.  Or, he didn't lie and is still not lying.    You would have to prove that one I guess. 

mspart

Wouldn't this be  considered circumstantial evidence? Vak.

[mspart]

4 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I didn't say it can't be true.  This is false.  I said no evidence of these allegations has actually be presented, just benign facts included with innuendo to make them seem more substantive than they are.

In these 3 sentences, you both say you didn't say it and then you say it.   You are giving your opinion that everything presented thus far are benign facts.  All other opinions on the matter are false or without merit, is the implication.   And you know that is not true.   In fact you do not know that the facts are benign, you are hoping they are.  

I must say I am surprised that you as a lawyer are not more curious regarding these benign facts.   Who was Joe working for while VP?  Obama or Hunter?   Both apparently.   This does not raise a single question for you?   Very surprising.   Why did he lie about something so benign?   That is the question most Americans, when presented with this, will ask themselves and come up with a very different answer than what you have presented.  

In other words, because evidence hasn't surfaced yet, there is nothing to see here folks.   Nothing happened.   It's all a witch hunt.   Except there is incontrovertible evidence that Biden lied as noted above.   So if these are benign facts, why did Biden lie?

I reiterate, I don't think Biden will be the D candidate going into the 2024 general election.   Damaged goods now.

mspart

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

It has been proved that Joe lied about:

a)  Not knowing anything about Hunter's business dealings.   Archer's testimony refutes this categorically.

b)  Hunter not making any money in China.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/01/biden-said-his-son-earned-no-money-china-his-son-says-otherwise/

I think you are right that the "smoking gun" or evidence regarding Joe has not been revealed.   So that should stop the investigation right?   That's how an investigator would treat this right?  Whatever happened to keep digging until you find something.   Perhaps that's what you don't want to happen. 

Archer said Joe didn't say much of substance while in the meetings with Hunter's partners, and that he didn't have to.   The access to the VP was the point, not the content of the meetings.   This is all very clearly established. 

The question for Joe is why did he lie about a) and b) above?    What was the point?   To a normal not lawyer type, it looks like he was hiding information he did not want known.   Why else lie about it?  I'm not sure what it looks like to a lawyer type?   I'm sure different lawyers will have different opinions on it.   Perhaps you being a lawyer can answer that.   Lessee - He lied because he could and there really was no reason to do it, nothing to see here folks.  Or, he didn't lie and is still not lying.    You would have to prove that one I guess. 

mspart

You saying something is true doesn't make it true.  Archer's testimony doesn't refute what you're saying it does.  Hunter making money in China, Joe being wrong about that doesn't mean he's lying, just wrong.

As to the second paragraph, I never said the investigation had to stop.  If they want to utilize their resources this way, have at it.  Again, you're making suppositions

[VakAttack]

4 minutes ago, mspart said:

In these 3 sentences, you both say you didn't say it and then you say it.   You are giving your opinion that everything presented thus far are benign facts.  All other opinions on the matter are false or without merit, is the implication.   And you know that is not true.   In fact you do not know that the facts are benign, you are hoping they are.  

I must say I am surprised that you as a lawyer are not more curious regarding these benign facts.   Who was Joe working for while VP?  Obama or Hunter?   Both apparently.   This does not raise a single question for you?   Very surprising.   Why did he lie about something so benign?   That is the question most Americans, when presented with this, will ask themselves and come up with a very different answer than what you have presented.  

In other words, because evidence hasn't surfaced yet, there is nothing to see here folks.   Nothing happened.   It's all a witch hunt.   Except there is incontrovertible evidence that Biden lied as noted above.   So if these are benign facts, why did Biden lie?

I reiterate, I don't think Biden will be the D candidate going into the 2024 general election.   Damaged goods now.

mspart

Again, you're just making things up.  I didn't say the opinions were false, I said they were just opinions without any presented factual underpinning.  The Republicans are the ones holding the hearings, they have access to all this information, it's their job to prove their assertions.  I didn't imply anything, I very directly stated that no actual evidence of their allegations has been presented.  They present a benign fact (for example, Hunter Biden flew on Air Force 2) and tie it into innuendo but don't present any evidence for the innuendo.  You think you're being intelligent, but you're just saying things, calling them facts, and then proceeding as if you've proved them.

 

20 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Wouldn't this be  considered circumstantial evidence? Vak.

No.  Circumstantial evidence would require some cause/effect.  For example, if my fingerprints are found at a house, and John Doe is found murdered at that house, my fingerprints could be presented as circumstantial evidence at a trial for that murder.  In this case you would have to show whatever benefit that business partner of Hunter's received from Joe.

[Ban Basketball]

I've just finished a great book within the same area(s) that I tend to focus my reading on.  In this book, the author repeatedly says that much of the M.O. of "truth" from the authoritarians today are one of two things:  (1)  it's "true enough" and (2) it's "plausible," therefore "true.

Then, keep repeating any of the two combinations above, over and over for 12 hours on AM radio, and for 24 hours on Tattletale News, and, as the Nazis knew, it will become "true" because it's continually repeated.

This case is a classic example; it's plausible.

[mspart]

I agree, convictions should not occur because of "plausible".   There needs to be great evidence here, but we might get that with a Hunter trial.  If not ok.   But if so, then that will be something to think about that is being dismissed today.

2 hours ago, VakAttack said:

You saying something is true doesn't make it true.  Archer's testimony doesn't refute what you're saying it does.  Hunter making money in China, Joe being wrong about that doesn't mean he's lying, just wrong.

Me saying something is true of course does not make it true, just like you saying it is not true does not make it not true.   With evidence mounting, you are in a particularly indefensible position.   You are now arguing that what has been established as true is not and even if so is irrelevant.   Do you also argue about what the definition of is is?

a)  There are photos of Joe Biden with Hunter and business partners.   There is evidence of Joe at Hunter business dinners.   There is evidence of Joe being on a phone call when Hunter was shaking down a Chinese guy for money.     I'd say Joe's statement that he didn't know anything about Hunter's business dealings was a bit more than him being wrong, it's a lie.  

b)  Joe categorically denied Hunter made money in China.   Even WAPO says that is not true.   So is Joe just wrong, or did he lie?  He lied.   Quote from the WAPO article above, "But now, nearly three years later, Biden’s assertions have been directly rebutted by Hunter himself.  In court testimony last week, the younger Biden acknowledged that he in fact had been paid substantial sums in China — the first official confirmation that this was the case."

I suppose you could use the Alzheimer's defense that he didn't know what he was talking about.   But that opens another can of worms. 

mspart

 

[ionel]

12 minutes ago, mspart said:

 

a)  ...  There is evidence of Joe being on a phone call when Hunter was shaking down a Chinese guy for money.     I'd say Joe's statement that he didn't know anything about Hunter's business dealings was a bit more than him being wrong, it's a lie.   

mspart

 

Don't forget the video evidence of Joe when VP shakedown of Ukraine, he loved to brag about it. 

[Offthemat]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

Don't forget the video evidence of Joe when VP shakedown of Ukraine, he loved to brag about it. 

Yes, that and the subsequent testimony by Archer that Burisma hired Hunter to help them out with the Ukrainian prosecutor. 

[ionel]

15 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Yes, that and the subsequent testimony by Archer that Burisma hired Hunter to help them out with the Ukrainian prosecutor. 

I wonder where Hunter learned this skill.  

[Offthemat]

What’s most troubling is that the government, the FBI, and DoG is working to obstruct the investigation of the Bidens while overextending to charge Trump with novel crimes. 

[Offthemat]

3 hours ago, VakAttack said:

No.  Circumstantial evidence would require some cause/effect.  For example, if my fingerprints are found at a house, and John Doe is found murdered at that house, my fingerprints could be presented as circumstantial evidence at a trial for that murder.  In this case you would have to show whatever benefit that business partner of Hunter's received from Joe.

Which would turn into smoking gun evidence if you’d claimed to have never being in his house and not even knowing him. 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

5 hours ago, mspart said:

I agree, convictions should not occur because of "plausible".   There needs to be great evidence here, but we might get that with a Hunter trial.  If not ok.   But if so, then that will be something to think about that is being dismissed today.

Me saying something is true of course does not make it true, just like you saying it is not true does not make it not true.   With evidence mounting, you are in a particularly indefensible position.   You are now arguing that what has been established as true is not and even if so is irrelevant.   Do you also argue about what the definition of is is?

a)  There are photos of Joe Biden with Hunter and business partners.   There is evidence of Joe at Hunter business dinners.   There is evidence of Joe being on a phone call when Hunter was shaking down a Chinese guy for money.     I'd say Joe's statement that he didn't know anything about Hunter's business dealings was a bit more than him being wrong, it's a lie.  

b)  Joe categorically denied Hunter made money in China.   Even WAPO says that is not true.   So is Joe just wrong, or did he lie?  He lied.   Quote from the WAPO article above, "But now, nearly three years later, Biden’s assertions have been directly rebutted by Hunter himself.  In court testimony last week, the younger Biden acknowledged that he in fact had been paid substantial sums in China — the first official confirmation that this was the case."

I suppose you could use the Alzheimer's defense that he didn't know what he was talking about.   But that opens another can of worms. 

mspart

 

Need to wake you up here. 

Your huge complaint seems to be that Joe Biden may have lied. I don't know. He may have lied about something. If, indeed, you are right - I'd rather he hadn't.

Remember, that most of these clowns bitching about Biden around here are Trump supporters...

Trump was the President that lied on an almost daily basis - and continues to lie every chance he gets, to this day.

If "lies" are really the issue here, you'll want to adjust your lie-ometer and maybe reconsider your perspective. 

[ionel]

8 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Need to wake up here. 

The huge complaint seems to be that Donald Trump may have lied. I don't know. He may have lied about something. If, indeed, you are right - I'd rather he hadn't.

Remember, that most of these clowns bitching about Trump around here are Biden supporters...

Biden was the President that lied on an almost daily basis (well or at least everyday he actually talked to the press) - and continues to lie every chance he gets, to this day.

If "lies" are really the issue here, you'll want to adjust your lie-ometer and maybe reconsider your perspective. 

ftfy