Democrats need to understand what evidence means

A big part of the dispute is that Democrats, in their effort to defend what increasingly looks like a highly corrupt and compromised Biden, scream “there’s no evidence!!!” The problem is that Democrats don’t understand what evidence is.

They think it means absolute proof. It does not. It means facts that make a claim likely, and to that we have whistleblower testimony, Archer’s testimony, 30+ visits from Hunter’s Burisma partner to the WH, bank records and SARs, the creation of 20 shell companies, the payoffs of $20 million coming from foreign countries and distributed to nine Biden family members, and so forth.

PLENTY of evidence.

Umm.. the "whistleblowers turned out to be either paid actors or wanted criminals.

Archer's testimony was excellent. For the Democrats, lol.

unconnected bank records are meaningless.
 
You just accused another poster of seeing you as the enemy! So if another poster responds that you see US as the enemy, that’s prejudice?

Why are you allowed to say it, and not us?
Didn’t you see that I responded to the other poster calling me his enemy?
However, I understand that Biden and the Democrat party are my enemies
 
No, that's not true. Archer said he wasn't aware of any. That's a big difference. Archer did say Hunter called DC to get the prosecutor fired. Joe bragged about it.
That is the same goddamn thing! Not aware of any, means no they didn't discuss!
 
Last edited:
FB_IMG_1691859030906.jpg
 
A big part of the dispute is that Democrats, in their effort to defend what increasingly looks like a highly corrupt and compromised Biden, scream “there’s no evidence!!!” The problem is that Democrats don’t understand what evidence is.

They think it means absolute proof. It does not. It means facts that make a claim likely, and to that we have whistleblower testimony, Archer’s testimony, 30+ visits from Hunter’s Burisma partner to the WH, bank records and SARs, the creation of 20 shell companies, the payoffs of $20 million coming from foreign countries and distributed to nine Biden family members, and so forth.

PLENTY of evidence.

Says the kettle to the pot.
 
So then no need to go via extension.Did Son Hunter receive
graft/perks.Like a $ 142,ooo Porsche.
Over $ 3 million from a Russian Oligarch.Plus a diamond ring.
Plus the Biden's are arguably The Biggest cheapskates when
it comes to giving to Charity.
One suitable defintion of a Retard is they Know Not what they
say or what they mean.On some level a version of RAD.
Reactive Attachment Disorder
Never to include the Hit Three Stooges short
- Disorder in the Court -.
Next time respond in English. I don't get gibberish. :itsok:
 
Projection.
Which is what the OP is. You want the allegations and opinions to be evidence, but It's not. Yet. Keep digging. You and your fellow super sleuths may strike paydirt someday. But right now all you have is projection.
Good luck!
 
Which (federal) law enforcement agency doesn't have it's nose so far up the Biden admnistrations ass that it will push to hang any conservative it can for whatever allegations it can conjure up?
 
A big part of the dispute is that Democrats, in their effort to defend what increasingly looks like a highly corrupt and compromised Biden, scream “there’s no evidence!!!” The problem is that Democrats don’t understand what evidence is.

They think it means absolute proof. It does not. It means facts that make a claim likely, and to that we have whistleblower testimony, Archer’s testimony, 30+ visits from Hunter’s Burisma partner to the WH, bank records and SARs, the creation of 20 shell companies, the payoffs of $20 million coming from foreign countries and distributed to nine Biden family members, and so forth.

PLENTY of evidence.

They suddenly think it means absolute proof ONLY when it’s a democrat being questioned. If it’s a Republican like say, Trump, ANY crackpot lefty with an opinion means absolute proof.
 
Nope. If a tree falls in the forest and you're not there to hear it, does it still make a noise? Dum dum.
I'm sorry, but you can't say to a judge, "I know a tree fell, however, I wasn't there to see it. Or hear it." So, according to the court, no tree has been proven to have fallen.
 
David Archer testified under oath that there was no business discussions between Hunter and his father. Therefore, there is no evidence to bring charges against the President. And yes, you have to have a smoking gun in order to bring charges.
Yeah Hunter just had his Dad who happened to be be VP call during his business meetings so he could put him on speakerphone to talk about the weather. There wasn’t anything being implied at all I promise.
 
We have listed the evidence over and over.
No, you have not listed evidence. You listed a wish list. Frankly, I do not care about Hunter. He is a non-issue. You have no evidence of the President's involvement in any of Hunter's nefarious activities.
That is simply a big wish, yes?
 

Forum List

Back
Top