Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hunter Biden should not have sought or accepted that job. It was nepotistic corruption.
Prosecutors always begin trials by explaining the crime alleged to have been committed and introducing the jury as to what kind of evidence to expect. Yesterday's testimony presented possible unethical and or illegal behavior. The witnesses presented expert testimony relating to the events being investigated. They were careful not to make firm commitments as to the legality of the knowledge they had of the circumstances, rightly preferring others to make those judgments.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.Call it what you will, dope.Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.Pure opinion, dumbass.
Still sworn testimony, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.Irrelevant drivel.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.
Your pathetic attempts to characterize this sworn testimony by highly credible witnesses as something less than that only betrays your weak position and desperation.
It's now part of the congressional record and history regardless of your retarded blathering.
why did hunter biden get hired then? he already said it was because of his name.Hunter Biden should not have sought or accepted that job. It was nepotistic corruption.
This is most likely wrong. Nepotism it would have been had Joe used the power of his office to secure Hunter's gig at Burisma. At the very least, there is no evidence whatsoever for that. You are right maintaining Hunter should not have accepted that job in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Still, words do matter.
Words matter? LMAO. Trump wasn’t digging for dirt. He was trying to find out who dumped the dirt pile in front of him.Hunter Biden should not have sought or accepted that job. It was nepotistic corruption.
This is most likely wrong. Nepotism it would have been had Joe used the power of his office to secure Hunter's gig at Burisma. At the very least, there is no evidence whatsoever for that. You are right maintaining Hunter should not have accepted that job in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Still, words do matter.
what is the alleged crime then? we're still waiting. The president is allowed to talk to foreign PMs. so what was the crime? come on sandy, get out of the grease and tell us.Prosecutors always begin trials by explaining the crime alleged to have been committed and introducing the jury as to what kind of evidence to expect. Yesterday's testimony presented possible unethical and or illegal behavior. The witnesses presented expert testimony relating to the events being investigated. They were careful not to make firm commitments as to the legality of the knowledge they had of the circumstances, rightly preferring others to make those judgments.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.Call it what you will, dope.Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.Still sworn testimony, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.Irrelevant drivel.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.
Your pathetic attempts to characterize this sworn testimony by highly credible witnesses as something less than that only betrays your weak position and desperation.
It's now part of the congressional record and history regardless of your retarded blathering.
The crimes being alleged are extortion, bribery, campaign election violations, and abuse of power.what is the alleged crime then? we're still waiting. The president is allowed to talk to foreign PMs. so what was the crime? come on sandy, get out of the grease and tell us.Prosecutors always begin trials by explaining the crime alleged to have been committed and introducing the jury as to what kind of evidence to expect. Yesterday's testimony presented possible unethical and or illegal behavior. The witnesses presented expert testimony relating to the events being investigated. They were careful not to make firm commitments as to the legality of the knowledge they had of the circumstances, rightly preferring others to make those judgments.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.Call it what you will, dope.Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.Irrelevant drivel.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.
Your pathetic attempts to characterize this sworn testimony by highly credible witnesses as something less than that only betrays your weak position and desperation.
It's now part of the congressional record and history regardless of your retarded blathering.
extortion of what? bribery of what? He is allowed to get dirt on an opposition, even though Joe isn't one yet, and he's allowed to go after corruption, it's in his job description. remember the Dossier? you're one confused mther fker.The crimes being alleged are extortion, bribery, campaign election violations, and abuse of power.what is the alleged crime then? we're still waiting. The president is allowed to talk to foreign PMs. so what was the crime? come on sandy, get out of the grease and tell us.Prosecutors always begin trials by explaining the crime alleged to have been committed and introducing the jury as to what kind of evidence to expect. Yesterday's testimony presented possible unethical and or illegal behavior. The witnesses presented expert testimony relating to the events being investigated. They were careful not to make firm commitments as to the legality of the knowledge they had of the circumstances, rightly preferring others to make those judgments.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.Call it what you will, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.Irrelevant drivel.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.
Your pathetic attempts to characterize this sworn testimony by highly credible witnesses as something less than that only betrays your weak position and desperation.
It's now part of the congressional record and history regardless of your retarded blathering.
Bullshit. They had ZERO first hand testimony. None.Call it what you will, dope.Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.Pure opinion, dumbass.No.
Sworn, first hand testimony, dope.
Still sworn testimony, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.
The RW around here can't wait for new (ahem) talking points (ahem)I watched every second and will do the same tomorrow. I can't speak for those who can't understand the big words.EXACTLY... this today was a complete SNOOZE FEST, and I guarantee, VERY few people watched it. But there was no GOTCHA, there was no new HEAD LINE, there wasn't ANYTHING, and the demtrash were banking on this being the BIG DAY, THIS WAS IT, this was their two STAR WITNESSES... we were supposed to see OVERWHELMING, something... but no, we saw NOTHING.If "the people" think it is a wast of their time, that's a win for the republicans.Democrats: We killed it
Republicans: We killed it
People: Thanks for wasting our time.
How many average people do the Dims really think sat around to listen to some idiot wax on about the history of Ukraine in global politics for an hour / hour and half before even mentioning Giuliani or Trump and then, only by hearsay, opinion and supposition to say that the PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN POLICY DID NOT FIT HIS?!
It's BACK FIRING, and if Nancy has a BRAIN CELL LEFT, she's going to be PULLING THE PLUG on ScHITf like FRIDAY.
The networks spent millions in lost adverting revenue to air this commercial free non stop, the same people that ran reruns of Leave It To Beaver last July rather than air the 4th celebration of our nation, its heroes and military because they considered THAT a waste of money. I only had the hearing on in the background and it was bad enough, folks who propped toothpicks in their eyes today for the "big show" won't be tuning in again much tomorrow.
what about it? it was their job, you obviously didn't hear the answers to Jim Jordan's questions. too fking funny. little mthr fkr you are.Bullshit. They had ZERO first hand testimony. None.Call it what you will, dope.Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.Pure opinion, dumbass.
Still sworn testimony, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.
Well, except for the hours where they outlined their direct interactions with Ukrainian officials in real time while this was all transpiring, of course.
you can start yours anytime.The RW around here can't wait for new (ahem) talking points (ahem)I watched every second and will do the same tomorrow. I can't speak for those who can't understand the big words.EXACTLY... this today was a complete SNOOZE FEST, and I guarantee, VERY few people watched it. But there was no GOTCHA, there was no new HEAD LINE, there wasn't ANYTHING, and the demtrash were banking on this being the BIG DAY, THIS WAS IT, this was their two STAR WITNESSES... we were supposed to see OVERWHELMING, something... but no, we saw NOTHING.If "the people" think it is a wast of their time, that's a win for the republicans.
How many average people do the Dims really think sat around to listen to some idiot wax on about the history of Ukraine in global politics for an hour / hour and half before even mentioning Giuliani or Trump and then, only by hearsay, opinion and supposition to say that the PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN POLICY DID NOT FIT HIS?!
It's BACK FIRING, and if Nancy has a BRAIN CELL LEFT, she's going to be PULLING THE PLUG on ScHITf like FRIDAY.
The networks spent millions in lost adverting revenue to air this commercial free non stop, the same people that ran reruns of Leave It To Beaver last July rather than air the 4th celebration of our nation, its heroes and military because they considered THAT a waste of money. I only had the hearing on in the background and it was bad enough, folks who propped toothpicks in their eyes today for the "big show" won't be tuning in again much tomorrow.
I'm sure you believe all the nonsense in your post.extortion of what? bribery of what? He is allowed to get dirt on an opposition, even though Joe isn't one yet, and he's allowed to go after corruption, it's in his job description. remember the Dossier? you're one confused mther fker.The crimes being alleged are extortion, bribery, campaign election violations, and abuse of power.what is the alleged crime then? we're still waiting. The president is allowed to talk to foreign PMs. so what was the crime? come on sandy, get out of the grease and tell us.Prosecutors always begin trials by explaining the crime alleged to have been committed and introducing the jury as to what kind of evidence to expect. Yesterday's testimony presented possible unethical and or illegal behavior. The witnesses presented expert testimony relating to the events being investigated. They were careful not to make firm commitments as to the legality of the knowledge they had of the circumstances, rightly preferring others to make those judgments.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.Irrelevant drivel.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.
Your pathetic attempts to characterize this sworn testimony by highly credible witnesses as something less than that only betrays your weak position and desperation.
It's now part of the congressional record and history regardless of your retarded blathering.
Dumbfuck...Since you can't back up that claim, dumbfuck...... link us up to the part of the treaty that says the President can't use it.And I will tell you again, the treaty was not about Biden, try as hard as you wish to make it about him. The treaty is about Trump, who again, was not authorized to use it.Once again I will ask...........and you will dodge.............show me the part of the treaty that says corruption can't be looked into if your name is Biden.And it still doesn't matter what Trump asked to be investigated since he is not authorized by the treaty to invoke it. Something you don't know because you either didn't read the treaty or you're simply not intelligent enough to understand it.Let me refresh your feeble memory about exactly what you said:Dumbfuck, I was talking about the treaty. It matters not what Trump wanted investigated, he was not authorized to use that treaty for any purpose.
Trump's not authorized by that treaty to ask the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival.
You are now claiming you were not talking about Biden, so who were you referencing?
Watch this..................
While you are doing that, explain which political rival you were referencing if it wasn't Biden.
It sure is fun painting you into a corner. (this is where you claim I didn't paint you into a corner in a feeble attempt to ignore the two challenges in this post)
That's now twice you've asked that and twice I gave you an answer you don't like. If you keep asking you will keep getting the same answer; and you know what repeating yourself but expecting a different response symptomatic of, right?
it is all fact. let me know what wasn't factualI'm sure you believe all the nonsense in your post.extortion of what? bribery of what? He is allowed to get dirt on an opposition, even though Joe isn't one yet, and he's allowed to go after corruption, it's in his job description. remember the Dossier? you're one confused mther fker.The crimes being alleged are extortion, bribery, campaign election violations, and abuse of power.what is the alleged crime then? we're still waiting. The president is allowed to talk to foreign PMs. so what was the crime? come on sandy, get out of the grease and tell us.Prosecutors always begin trials by explaining the crime alleged to have been committed and introducing the jury as to what kind of evidence to expect. Yesterday's testimony presented possible unethical and or illegal behavior. The witnesses presented expert testimony relating to the events being investigated. They were careful not to make firm commitments as to the legality of the knowledge they had of the circumstances, rightly preferring others to make those judgments.Irrelevant drivel.
Your pathetic attempts to characterize this sworn testimony by highly credible witnesses as something less than that only betrays your weak position and desperation.
It's now part of the congressional record and history regardless of your retarded blathering.
Too bad there is no evidence to support those allegations.The crimes being alleged are extortion, bribery, campaign election violations, and abuse of power.what is the alleged crime then? we're still waiting. The president is allowed to talk to foreign PMs. so what was the crime? come on sandy, get out of the grease and tell us.Prosecutors always begin trials by explaining the crime alleged to have been committed and introducing the jury as to what kind of evidence to expect. Yesterday's testimony presented possible unethical and or illegal behavior. The witnesses presented expert testimony relating to the events being investigated. They were careful not to make firm commitments as to the legality of the knowledge they had of the circumstances, rightly preferring others to make those judgments.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.Call it what you will, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.Irrelevant drivel.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.
Your pathetic attempts to characterize this sworn testimony by highly credible witnesses as something less than that only betrays your weak position and desperation.
It's now part of the congressional record and history regardless of your retarded blathering.
Are you talking about the 4 meetings with Zelenski where he never said anything about aid being held up, or pressure from Trump?Bullshit. They had ZERO first hand testimony. None.Call it what you will, dope.Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.Pure opinion, dumbass.
Still sworn testimony, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.
Well, except for the hours where they outlined their direct interactions with Ukrainian officials in real time while this was all transpiring, of course.
Presidential elections are every 4 years. Who do you think you voted for last week?LOLSadly, I know you are but what am I, truly is the extent of your intellect .He's too busy grabbing himself.
Why are you projecting, Fawn? LOL
Ha, you responded. Poke successful. I knew what QE was/is and you didn't. You're dumb.
Spits the idiot troll who thinks Trump was elected in 2015.
LMAO!!! Keep telling yourself that. What is QE? Duh...is it lowering of interest rates? Duh....LMAO!!!
Nowhere in there does it say the President can't use it. In fact, it never even mentions the President, dumbfuck.Dumbfuck...Since you can't back up that claim, dumbfuck...... link us up to the part of the treaty that says the President can't use it.And I will tell you again, the treaty was not about Biden, try as hard as you wish to make it about him. The treaty is about Trump, who again, was not authorized to use it.Once again I will ask...........and you will dodge.............show me the part of the treaty that says corruption can't be looked into if your name is Biden.And it still doesn't matter what Trump asked to be investigated since he is not authorized by the treaty to invoke it. Something you don't know because you either didn't read the treaty or you're simply not intelligent enough to understand it.Let me refresh your feeble memory about exactly what you said:
You are now claiming you were not talking about Biden, so who were you referencing?
Watch this..................
While you are doing that, explain which political rival you were referencing if it wasn't Biden.
It sure is fun painting you into a corner. (this is where you claim I didn't paint you into a corner in a feeble attempt to ignore the two challenges in this post)
That's now twice you've asked that and twice I gave you an answer you don't like. If you keep asking you will keep getting the same answer; and you know what repeating yourself but expecting a different response symptomatic of, right?
I bet you have your butt buddies shaft swallowed half way down your throat.I bet you have one...Sorry... but I don't speak bubble head lib-slang... I have no idea who Trumpybear is.No.What difference would it make?
None
Now you're just kidding yourself.
If Trumpybear knew there was an open investigation into Good Ol'Joe he would turn him into Hillary the horrible in a heartbeat.
