Proof of "Bribed Biden"

Comer was the one who made the offer for it to be public. And we STILL have no evidence of any kind of crime by Joe. At all.

 

SOP is a private interview first and then the public hearing. Why can’t Hunter do both?

 

Why should he trust Comer to do both when he's already backed off of his original offer?

 

He does. He's been on this kick since the investigations began. I saw this during Watergate with the Republicans. It's no different now with the Democrats. They don't want to see any evidence and their only response is stonewalling.

 

No evidence has been provided. You guys have been on the "but we don't need evidence" kick since the investigations began, and nothing has changed.

 

@yardmeat

you need to step up you game, my friend…. You have failed to provide evidence as proof any of Comer work is wrong


All here…. Prove Comer wrong….

Here is four pages worth of evidence of corruption... What did Joe know and when did he know it... PROVE ANY OF IT WRONG...

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Bank-Memorandum-5.10.23.pdf

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-third-bank-memo-detailing-payments-to-the-bidens-from-russia-kazakhstan-and-ukraine/

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Fourth-Bank-Records-Memo.pdf

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Redacted-doc.pdf

 

We need to keep repeating that essential truth. Everything else they say breaks on it like waves on a seawall.

 

There might be hooker chasers who use drugs who graduated from Georgetown and Yale, but I don't know any dummies that ever did. Anyway can hit a slump, especially after your brother died young.
.

No you're looking at a mirage that you think looks like a duck.

The truth will come out, and Republicans are going to experience a backlash like no one has ever experienced.

Hunter has had his named dragged through the mud for years by jackals in congress and he has a right to a public hearing.

 

well, that's a new one, a strawman metaphor.

Very interesting.

@yardmeat

 

And we're sure Hunter can explain how he earned every cent of it.

Probably consulting work of some kind.

 

Since he was smeared in public for years, I would support him if he said he'd do it in a public hearing.

Becauses that is fair.

The guttersnipes in the republican committee cannot be trusted.

Why? They are the ones defaming him in public which, without evidence, is unethical.

Sunshine disinfects.

The ONLY ethical place for Hunter Biden is a public forum where every one can see what the dishonest republicans are up to.

they cannot be trusted and I COMMEND Hunter for demanding a public hearing.

And don't give me any crap about subpoenas. Repubs in congress destroyed their credibility when they failed to show up for subpoenas when dems had the gavel.

Don't lecture us about PR stunts, the entire effort to smear Hunter is all about getting Trump elected. It's tit for tat politics of the worst kind.

 

First you prove that they were.

 

Smearing innocent human beings by repubs in congress is not SOP.

Why would hunter want to be in a private session with unethical people?

 

You are getting an answer. The same posters post the same information over and over. It’s their evidence taken from cherry picked sources that provide the information they want. Nobody, in this thread has provided any real evidence of anything, just opinion. It’s pretty clear they have nothing but opinion.

 

I think you have your answer. They have no proof. Most of Biden's accusers have wisley chosen to avoid even trying to address your points. The few on this thread can only spam the thread with links they have likely not read, make up hypotheticals and insist that we prove someone innocent of claims that have never been substantiated.

Its kinda funny to watch the endless repetition, but only for a while. then its just sad.

 

What a lame response! They're going to find out more with five minutes each than they will learn with ZERO minutes each. Besides, it doesn't have to be five minutes. They can have ONE member question him using the entire alloted time, if they want.

YOU'RE the one who brought up allowing them to explain what has been questioned.

Your response is so lame that it looks like now that I explained to you that Hunter WAS there, you now realize what a foolish question that was. So clearly you didn't think your post through.

The ONLY "term" is to do it publicly. Which would not allow them to cherry-pick and tergiverse

"Smoking gun OR NOT..." How is that trivial to you? Why would Congress spend hours and taxpayer money investigating somebody if there were NOT a "smoking gun"?

I know EXACTLY the reason: since Trump was impeached twice for REAL abuse of power, they want to delegitimize the process of impeachment. In the end, the would want people to thing that it doesn't matter that Trump was impeached because they will think something like "...if a CLOWN like Jordan can bring impeachment charges without the need of a REASON, then the impeachment process is irrelevant". That's how fascists destroy the constitution. And that's how people like YOU help them!

 

you have no evidence that the fake empty shell companies were not used for money laundering...

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Bank-Memorandum-5.10.23.pdf

 

You have no evidence that they are.

 

you have no evidence that the fake empty shell companies were not used for money laundering... please provide evidence or proof to back up your baseless claim...

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Bank-Memorandum-5.10.23.pdf

 

you have no evidence that the fake empty shell companies were used for money laundering... please provide evidence or proof to back up your baseless claim...

 

you have no evidence that the fake empty shell companies were not used for money laundering... please provide evidence or proof to back up your baseless claim...

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Bank-Memorandum-5.10.23.pdf

 

Payments to Biden many family members ... Hunter bragging that his father is in the room and won't like it if his clients don't pay up ... $250,000 checks for "loans" with no paperwork ... multiple shell companies to make tracing the cash flow harder ...

There's nothing to see here. Just move on. That's the Democrat position.

 

You have no evidence that the fake empty shell companies were used for money laundering... please provide evidence or proof to back up your baseless claim...

 

Thats not how it works. He does not need to be guilty for the desired effect to be achieved. If they dig deep enough, they will get him on something.

 

@Cybred

cheap liberal talk and no rebuttal

you have no evidence that the fake empty shell companies were not used for money laundering... please provide evidence or proof to back up your baseless claim...

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Bank-Memorandum-5.10.23.pdf