Crime Hunter Biden's Business Partners Testify Under Oath

[panamaican]

Conflict of interest probably and you know that

But not when he's not in office. It's a potential conflict if he's holding government influence and power. But once he's left office there's no conflict. Unless it can be shown that the promise to pay off the loan from the Chinese money was made while he was in office.

But that claim isn't being made.

The problem here is the same problem that's been here from the beginning. The allegations sound great. But the proponents keep skipping the details that would make the allegations true. It's not even circumstantial evidence, it's just random facts that are colored by people's political opinions, not any real interest in the elements of the alleged crimes.

 

[lilelvis]

Give it up boys, ‘ol lunchbox Joe is squeaky clean.

 

[Limeade]

What a disaster.

police officer interrogating a 15 year old witness: can you tell me the crime?

kid: he had a giant shipment of drugs in his van

officer: can you list me the crime? what's the statute?

kid: huh?

officer: if you can't list the statute we've got nothing

kid: i have the whole thing on video.


officer: let him go boys, we've got nothing

I don't think your analogy is close. She's asking for the predicate offense. There has to be an underlying crime behind the conspiracy. Otherwise it's just a bunch of people working together.

 

[44nutman]

Where is the lawfare crowd with this bullshit.
I need some evidence to convict Ole Man Joe and if guilty fuck em but the problem is there is no evidence which is why the GOP will not call a vote but will continue the theater. At least the GOP stopped voting on Speakers of House.
BTW this GOP Congress is historically the most do nothing Congress in history. Seems like all they do is TV interviews, call shady ass Russian ties witness and vote for Speakers. No wonder a lot of them are quitting.

 

[HARRISON_3]

Bobulinski has TDS.

 

[44nutman]

Give it up boys, ‘ol lunchbox Joe is squeaky clean.

With the "evidence" they are presenting, you are right.

 

[Lucas1980]

Really don't care much about this case but watching the clips of that AOC bitch just get completely humiliated and loose her shit was priceless... The people in her district must be so proud.

 

[jk7707]

What a disaster.

I don't think your analogy is close. She's asking for the predicate offense. There has to be an underlying crime behind the conspiracy. Otherwise it's just a bunch of people working together.

It's the same thing they were doing with the "money laundering" accusation back near the beginning of this. They accused Biden of money laundering without ever showing how any of the supposed money was illegally obtained.

They're just desperate at this point because behind the scenes Trump is pressuring them to keep up this charade. I almost feel bad for Comer having to repeatedly humiliate himself with these "bombshell" reports that turn out to be nothing. But in the end he brought it on himself by being a spineless bitch and groveling at Trump's feet.

 

[ShadowRun]

But not when he's not in office. It's a potential conflict if he's holding government influence and power. But once he's left office there's no conflict. Unless it can be shown that the promise to pay off the loan from the Chinese money was made while he was in office.

But that claim isn't being made.

The problem here is the same problem that's been here from the beginning. The allegations sound great. But the proponents keep skipping the details that would make the allegations true. It's not even circumstantial evidence, it's just random facts that are colored by people's political opinions, not any real interest in the elements of the alleged crimes.

lol you think someone has to be in office to have influence and ever heard of strategic planning(long term investment) ..

you're as much as a conservative you claim to be as Jussie is a victim from MAGA people at 2 AM

 

[ShadowRun]

What's the conflict of interest? And even if there is one, it's not a criminal act, but an ethics violation.

So your standards are only based on criminal laws ? Very deep bro

 

[Andy Capp]

So your standards are only based on criminal laws ? Very deep bro

Derptastic. This is an impeachment inquiry. Of course, criminal wrongdoing is the standard.

 

[AWilder]

So your standards are only based on criminal laws ? Very deep bro

And still way stricter than any right wing dork in these forums.

 

[jk7707]

lol you think someone has to be in office to have influence and ever heard of strategic planning(long term investment) ..

you're as much as a conservative you claim to be as Jussie is a victim from MAGA people at 2 AM

You can claim that all you want. Where is the EVIDENCE proving it? So far there is none.

 

[Rational Poster]

So your standards are only based on criminal laws ? Very deep bro

I just didn't think Trump supporters cared about ethics violations is all.

 

[cincymma79]

But not when he's not in office. It's a potential conflict if he's holding government influence and power. But once he's left office there's no conflict. Unless it can be shown that the promise to pay off the loan from the Chinese money was made while he was in office.

But that claim isn't being made.

The problem here is the same problem that's been here from the beginning. The allegations sound great. But the proponents keep skipping the details that would make the allegations true. It's not even circumstantial evidence, it's just random facts that are colored by people's political opinions, not any real interest in the elements of the alleged crimes.

I have trouble believing that Biden while he had his wits about him, and having written a lot of these rules, was breaking any laws. Ran all the way up against them for sure. Is a shining example of how Washington works? Yes. I do hope everyone sees the actual game here though

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You can claim that all you want. Where is the EVIDENCE proving it? So far there is none.

 

[Super_Nintendo]

She wasn't wrong. RICO is a way of convicting people for the crimes that the organization engaged in, even if they didn't directly commit the crime.

Bobul needs to state the actual crime -- theft of money, trading money for a specific illegal act, selling state secrets, etc. There has to be a crime then Joe B. has to be tied to the organization that created the crime. Then RICO can be used to convict Joe B. as part of the organization.

But at the root of it all, we need the crime. Bobulinski didn't state crimes, just criminal words. Corruption -- what was the corrupt act? Bribery -- bribed by who to do what?

The whole thing is an empty circus and the GOP needs better witnesses.

that's for prosecutors to decide, not a witness who is just pointing out any alleged wrong-doing, right? the left wants none of it unless we somehow skip straight to charges. leftist logic is indict him now or we won't let you have the necessary precursors to charges in the first place aka i don't see a cake in front of me so kill the chef and destroy all the ingredients.

 

[Rational Poster]

that's for prosecutors to decide, not a witness who is just pointing out any alleged wrong-doing, right? the left wants none of it unless we somehow skip straight to charges. leftist logic is indict him now or we won't let you have the necessary precursors to charges in the first place aka i don't see a cake in front of me so kill the chef and destroy all the ingredients.

lmao you guys have been on your fishing expedition to impeach Biden for like 6 years.

How many more years do you need?

 

[jk7707]

that's for prosecutors to decide, not a witness who is just pointing out any alleged wrong-doing, right? the left wants none of it unless we somehow skip straight to charges. leftist logic is indict him now or we won't let you have the necessary precursors to charges in the first place aka i don't see a cake in front of me so kill the chef and destroy all the ingredients.

No. The "left" wants Comer and his clown squad to present EVIDENCE that Joe Biden committed a crime. All they have presented so far are unsupported accusations, and Bobulinski's testimony was just more of the same. Babbling about RICO, corruption, and bribery, isn't evidence unless he's got something to back it up. And it's clear he doesn't, because of he did it wouldn't have taken this long to hear about it.

 

[panamaican]

lol you think someone has to be in office to have influence and ever heard of strategic planning(long term investment) ..

you're as much as a conservative you claim to be as Jussie is a victim from MAGA people at 2 AM

No, I think they have to be in office for it to be an objectionable conflict of interest.

Once he's out of office, he's certainly allowed to sell his influence and access. It's what lobbyists do all of time and why law firms snatch up ex-politicians. Hint: It's not because they're good lawyers.