VakAttack

You're making assumptions and treating them as facts. Also talk to a father with an addiction for a son.

So you and this Committee keep claiming, without providing any proof.

I have no doubt that Hunter has been actively trading on his father's name. It's an American failson tradition. HBO just finished showing one of the greatest shows of all time on the topic.

The associate didn't say that Joe Biden talked business for one. Like, very explicitly said he did not talk business.

Hunter is definitely going to have to drop out now.

Truly a devastating blow to Hunter Biden's presidential aspirations.

What correction?

Most logos are lame. Except for MatScouts, of course.

Not really. A pro‐Obama PAC made an unfair ad and the ad was reported on, all of the mainstream articles I can find provide full context to the claims and seem to at least insinuate the unfairness of the ad. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/priorities-ad-ties-mitt-romney-to-cancer-death/2012/08/07/d723d8c0-e084-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html https://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/is-romney-to-blame-for-cancer-death/ https://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/woman-mentioned-in-priorities-ad-died-in-06-131332

There were many claims made by various attorneys. As to the initial insinuation that this potential evidentiary violation lead to his early release, that part is simply not true. As to this new direct question regarding video not being disclosed, that appears to be in reference to two 10 second clips. I don't obviously have access to either sides actual file, but all I know is the federal prosecutors say that one of the clips had been previously disclosed but one seems to have been disclosed well after Chansley's conviction. That could be considered a discovery violation but is unlikely to have any affect on a conviction, especially since he took a plea deal which typically waives most of your rights to appeal. Sources: "Albert Watkins, the attorney who handled Chansley’s plea and sentencing, tells TIME that the new footage did not play any role in his former client’s release. “Absolutely no,” he says. “I have seen no indication of any filings related to the new footage. There are no docket entries indicating the same.” He notes that the plea agreement and sentencing imposed by the court permitted reduced time if Chansley undertook certain programs and behaved well while confined. The early release, he says, is most likely “based on a host of factors routinely taken into consideration by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.” https://time.com/6267335/jan-6-qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-released-early-prison/ "Prosecutors say that apart from 10 seconds that “implicated an evacuation route,” the rest of the video played by Carlson was released to Pezzola and Chansley by September 24, 2021, and the additional 10 seconds were released to all January 6 defendants on January 23, 2023." https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/12/politics/jacob-chansley-footage-tucker-carlson/index.html

A defense attorney.

The problem here is that you've made a claim and just assumed it's true for the purpose of making your argument. Not every death is a huge news story, tragic though it is to the deceased person's family and friends. A certain segment is trying to weaponize this tragedy with no evidence other than they were employed by the Obamas. It's the Seth Rich tragedy all over again.

Not really, no.

Truly incredible how many people will keep playing the same hits, over and over.

Any day now that will become actual value.

https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_3fae078e-8724-4c28-9340-2c154688af43 https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html This is just not accurate.

Regarding the Ukrainian prosecutor, that's been widely debunked and also, making aid contingent is not illegal in any way; the vast majority of the aid we offer is contingent. The guy in question, Viktor Shokin, was widely seen as corrupt throughout Ukraine. As to things Hunter says, you can't have him be both an unreliable ***duck duck goose** up criminal AND the fulcrum of the case. It's also not direct evidence, you would need bank records actually showing the things you're claiming (or something equivalent). I'm not saying Biden never benefitted or took improper benefits. You would never lose money if you bet on politicians partaking in corrupt behavior. I'm saying there's no sort of convincing evidence thusfar presented. If something comes out in the future, which it very well might, I'll review it. Meanwhile the Republicans keep putting on these hearings, blowing all kinds of smoke about the evidence they're going to have, and so far it's all nothingburgers. Again, I will not be surprised in the least if something comes out at some point: I think of politicians and corruption the same way I do of high-level athletes and PEDs. I would guess the vast, vast, vast majority partake.

We do? You may believe he did, but there isn't any evidence of it...so far, at least.

Go on....

The testimony is supposedly being transcribed. So far we have one Democrat on the record describing fairly banal things, but obviously a biased source. If the testimony is as described, then there is still no evidence of anything other than Hunter being failson trading on his father's name which...yeah, they do that. This must be why Big Joe didn't have him gunned down in the streets.

it's not his fault he was in a band with Glenn Frey and all-time talent Don Henley. But this song is possibly my favorite Eagles song, and it's his vocal that really brings it to another level.

Having not seen the segment you're talking about, it sounds like what he's describing as rare (and he's right) is both sides showing up and saying they have an agreement when they really didn't, not the judge interjecting. In that situation where that occurs (I've had it happen to me once) it's typically either a result of sloppy lawyering or one side trying to bully the other at the last second for more favorable terms.

The answer is yes, but it depends on the judge (also I supposed it would depend on what you qualify as a lot). Also, given this is a federal case, plea deals are a little different than what most people think of; in state level court, where I work, the sentence is agreed upon, and while judges can interject, they typically won't. In federal court, where Hunter Biden's case is, they're really more of "joint sentencing recommendations" with prosecutors typically dropping charges (a practice sometimes referred to as charge-bargaining) to create a joint recommendation of a sentence and a sentencing range. The judge still has to choose to impose the recommended sentence, and they often interject themselves. As to this particular situation, I didn't watch the hearing myself obviously, but most of the reporting seems to indicate that when it was presented to the judge, the attorneys for both sides disagreed on aspects of it, which means there wasn't actually an agreement at all (for a plea agreement to be final, both parties have to agree to all aspects), and this was essentially delayed for now while the two sides try to reach a final, full agreement. In the end, it will still be up to the judge to accept the recommendation, though.

Willie, the feelings are entirely mutual. You're good people.

Ok, so in this thread Biden is a cunning criminal mastermind running everything and avoiding leaving any semblance of credible evidence. In other threads he's a senile bumbling fool who can't stay awake and shits himself. It's so hard to keep up!