nypost.com
Most say no but if the Democrat machine puts him up as the nominee they will all follow along with the herd.
Who the hell are they going to replace him with? Mayor Pete? Kamala? Gaven? Bedo?
What evidence do you need in order to think a case is not being fabricated?
LOL .... Dark and gloomy where your heads at? Stinky too
That's a good little sheep.
Anything legitimate! I have seen nothing and neither has the press. It is all in the minds of the Fox reporters and Republicans heads.
He's kissed the ring many times hell, he'd kiss cankles ring if she were given the opportunity to wear it. Disturbing.
Republican Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden (Published 2020)
The report delivered on Wednesday appeared to be little more than a rehashing of unproven allegations that echoed a Russian disinformation campaign.www.nytimes.com
Sept. 23, 2020?Republican Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden (Published 2020)
The report delivered on Wednesday appeared to be little more than a rehashing of unproven allegations that echoed a Russian disinformation campaign.
carry on
I appreciate that you replied, but that’s not an answer, it’s a copout. What does it take before you agree something is legitimate? I suspect the only “legitimate” evidence for you would be a full confession, anything else is circumstantial in your mind.
Don't ever let anyone tell you the MSM propaganda is not effective.
This is a conversation about Joe Biden’s participation in the Biden family crime syndicate. I will be happy to participate in a dialog with you about DJT’s criminal allegations in another thread if you want. But let’s stick to the topic at hand. I’m arguing there are reams of circumstantial evidence leading to the conclusion that Joe Biden actively participated in a criminal enterprise. Certainly enough to justify an impeachment inquiry. You argue the evidence is fabricated and therefore an impeachment inquiry is not justified. My question to you is how much circumstantial evidence do you need? Or are you insisting there is no amount that will get you to change your mind, that nothing short of a confession will satisfy you? I would appreciate it if you would quit dancing around and give an honest answer.
Here you go, Pilgrim. Skin that one and I’ll bring you some more.
reason.com
Here you go, Pilgrim. Skin that one and I’ll bring you some more.
There’s plenty of evidence of corruption around Biden
When talking heads say “no evidence,” they mean “no smoking-gun proof.”
When you get through with that one nibble on this one. Should I bring you more, or is this enough?Here you go, Pilgrim. Skin that one and I’ll bring you some more.
There’s plenty of evidence of corruption around Biden
When talking heads say “no evidence,” they mean “no smoking-gun proof.”
Seriously, Clinton, it shows plenty of circumstantial evidence necessary to justify an impeachment inquiry, and you know it, you just don’t want to admit it. Biden stands accused and he, like Trump before him, deserves his day in court (so to speak).
When you get through with that one nibble on this one. Should I bring you more, or is this enough?
Evidence of Joe Biden’s Involvement in His Family’s Influence Peddling Schemes - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountabilityoversight.house.gov
No…it doesn’t, Dan. You buy into the stupidest sh!t now. You look just like the MAGAt dumbasses on here with their gullibility and ignorance.
You're the Biden equivalent of the Trumpsters that see him waving around classified documents and insist there's nothing to see.Full Committee on Oversight and Accountability - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
A veritable who’s who of truthseekers lol. jfc Dan…you’re a hot mess of a MAGAt now.
carry on
Who should be cited before you think maybe there's a there there? Hillary? Moeller? Comey? 51 national security experts? Vindman? Adam Schiff? You might want to reassess who looks like the idiot.
How many times? Once. In an official impeachment inquiry. If the Republicans cannot present their circumstantial evidence and use it to connect the dots to show impeachment is the proper course of action then they will once again have egg on their faces. OTOH if they can connect the dots you’ll be the one being blindly loyal to a criminal.
I have done no such thing. It only looks that way to you because you can't conceive that anyone other than a MAGA could hate what Biden and the rest of the Democrats are doing to this country. You have a very unsophisticated view of the political landsacape.
You're all over the place, Clinton. On the one hand evidence in an impeachment inquiry is not proof (and you're right, the charges will need to be proven), while on the other hand you equate indictments, which are nothing other than unproven charges, as predetermined guilt. You're trying to have it both ways, my friend. Pick a lane and stay in it!
Yes, I think Trump won. I think the Democrats cheated. One needn't be a MAGA to think that. You're a one-trick pony. Try and expand your thinking a little bit, it will do you some good.
