One particular inconvenient fact about the Hunter Biden laptop

[Meister]

And "looks" are all you fuckers care about

That's what the democrats have been doing with Trump for years.

 

[Rawley]

Form 1023
IRS Whistleblowers
FBI Whistleblowers
Mr. Bobulinsky
Hunter's Laptop
Mr. Shokin
(17) Burisma recordings
20 LLCs
Suspicious bank transfers
Money sent to various Biden Crime Family members for no work
Biden's extortion video to fire Shokin after the Obama and EU gave Ukraine the $1b BECAUSE of Shokin
Chinese money
Burisma money, aka "bribery"
Russian money, to keep sanctions off Baturina
...and on and on, and on...

I'd add the two dozen phone calls where Hunter put Daddy on speakerphone at business meetings.

 

[Rawley]

Just as the accused has a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, There is also a presumption of there being no evidence, until evidence is presented to and proven in a court of law.

LOL So your argument is that there is NO EVIDENCE against Donald Trump. Really?

 

[bripat9643]

For all the hoopla surrounding Biden's laptop, there is this inescapable, inconvenient, and very glaring fact:

When a new administration comes to the White House, one of the many things on the bucket list of presidential things to do is to fire all the US Attorneys from the previous administration, and bring in the new president's own team.

Joe Biden did this except for one, the US Attorney Delaware, David Weiss (two, actually, he left Durham in place who hasn't come up with squat, either).

Why was he left and not replaced?

Because the previous AG, Bill Barr, assigned this Trump appointed Us Attorney to investigate Hunter Biden. When Joe Biden took over the presidency, so as not to appear trying to tip the scales one way or the other, he left Weiss in place to finish the job, the investigation of his own son.

Does that sound like the work of a corrupt president? Sounds like just the opposite, to me, and should sound like the opposite of corruption to any rational human being who doesn't kneejerk at the first bit of innuendo and scant evidence that comes down the pike.

The fact of the matter is that Hunter Biden has been under investigation by the DOJ, to wit, a Trump appointed US Attorney David Weiss for the last three years, and Weiss has, thus far, not given the slightest hint that the President has done anything wrong (only that Hunter might be indicted for taxes and lying on a gun application form, but I doubt there is evidence of taxes, maybe not registering as a foreign agent, or some minor charge which I doubt a US Attorney will have the cajones to indict a sibling of a US President on a chickenshit charge).

David Weiss, the US attorney who holds Hunter Biden’s fate in his hands - Washington Examiner

David Weiss, the little-known U.S. attorney for Delaware, will soon step into the spotlight as the Justice Department's prosecutor with the power to file potential criminal charges against President Joe Biden’s troubled son Hunter. Multiple outlets reported Thursday that the FBI believes it has...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

So, If the shoe were on Trump's foot, would Trump have left that attorney in place if it were his son being investigated? We don't have to speculate, the answer is no because Trump fired Preet Bharara, the US Attorney who sensed he was about to be asked to do something inappropriate, who was getting regular phone calls from Trump, decided it was best to not answer his calls anymore, to head that prospect off at the pass, so to speak, and a day later, he was fired. Trump's WH reeks of corruption.

US attorney Preet Bharara fired after refusing Jeff Sessions' order to resign

Manhattan prosecutor’s announcement comes day after attorney general told US attorneys, nearly all appointed by Obama, they should resign from their posts

www.theguardian.com

That is the one fact which utterly vanquishes all the hysterics and hyperbole surrounding the 'laptop' saga. "In my opinion" and it is my opinion because it's logical

I've seen all the 'evidence' presented thus far and, what I've seen isn't evidence. Oh, it might be classified as some kind of evidence in the evendiary list on some academic chart, but it's not HARD evidence, the kind of evidence that strongly, if not proving, an allegation. Remember, this isn't about Hunter, it's about Joe, and on that score, the score is zero. Last time I checked, Hunter isn't running for office, and THAT is why I don't think it should be about Hunter. Although, 'scuse my whataboutism, but Jared scored $2 billion big ones from the murderous Mohammed Bin Salman on the way out of his gig at the Trump WH, and what, crickets from Republicans? Oh, a House committee commenced an investigation when Dems were in charged, but stalled when Repubs took over. Someone's barking up the wrong tree.

If you think you got proof, put up or shut up, as they say.

So, Put up or shut up. I don't care if you are nice or mean, it makes no real difference to me, but the important thing is, let's be factual. Make sure it will withstand scrutiny in a court cross examination, because I'm going scrutinize your 'evidence', (if that's what you call it). Fire away. Oh, don't tell me to hunt for it, because I sure as hell am not taking your word for what the facts are, even your contention that you think the proof is posted elsewhere this forum, Speaking of which, I have searched for evidence on this forum, and what I see, I can easily poke holes in, and so, the hard evidence, well, it's just not there. If you think you got it, show me.

And confirming this fact is because if it were really evidence, the kind that a prosecutor has confidence in which will hold up under forensic scrutiny in a court of law, we'd have heard from Weiss by now, and he's just not talking. How much can be on that hard drive, anyway? How long does it take just to investigate one man? Three years worth? Bobulinski hasn't produced squat. And the so called '$3.5 million allegedly paid to Hunter from the wife of a Moscow Mayor'? Uh, no, his lawyer, George Mesires, told CNN that Hunter Biden was not an owner of the firm Senate Republicans allege received the $3.5 million payment in 2014. “Hunter Biden had no interest in and was not a ‘co-founder’ of Rosemont Seneca Thornton, so the claim that he was paid $3.5 million is false,” Mesires said.

CNN's Facts First searchable database - CNN

Search CNN’s Facts First database for fact checks related to the U.S. economy, mail-in voting, coronavirus, police reform and more.

www.cnn.com

If you have a problem with CNN, quotes are either factual or they aren't', either Mesires said that or he didn't. Even CNN won't deliberately misquote a lawyer, and if that were not true, we'd have a statement from Mesires, and there is none.

Moreover, Glenn Kessler, WaPos fact checker since 2011 confirms it:




In other words, There is no clear evidence that Hunter Biden received $3.5 million from the former mayor of Moscow's wife.

None, but that's par for the course when it comes to alleged 'evidence' from Republicans.

In September 2020, a Senate Republican report alleged that Elena Baturina, the widow of the former mayor of Moscow, wired $3.5 million to a bank account associated with Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a company co-founded by Hunter Biden. The report also alleged that the transaction may have been "linked to prostitution or human trafficking."

However, these allegations have not been substantiated by any credible evidence, and Hunter Biden has denied them. The report was also criticized for relying on unverified and circumstantial information, and for being highly partisan in nature.

It's worth noting that Hunter Biden has faced scrutiny in the past due to his business dealings in Ukraine and China while his father, Joe Biden, was Vice President. However, there is no evidence that he has engaged in any illegal or unethical behavior.

As for this:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf

It has been debunked here:

What to Make of the Johnson-Grassley Report on Biden and Burisma

The report doesn't break any new ground and highlights the decline of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

www.lawfareblog.com

The reports retread familiar ground for those who followed the 2019 impeachment inquiry. And it’s hard to read these reports and not come to the same conclusion as those proceedings indicated: Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma had no impact on the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy decisions.

And here.

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

[The] ...87-page report summing up the findings, released jointly on Wednesday by the Senate Homeland Security and Finance Committees, contained no evidence that the elder Mr. Biden improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed. In fact, investigators heard witness testimony that rebutted those charges.

I hear lot of innuendo, clever quips like 'Biden Family received $ from China'. However, it is notable that Hunter and his Brother equals 'family'. But, if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just a couple of Americans doing business abroad. So, when Republicans say 'Biden Family', they are hoping the listener won't notice, won't scrutinize the term, and assume 'family' includes Joe, so Republicans are intentionally being deceptive.

Is Hunter trading off dad's name? Well, he's admitted it, and so? Siblings trading off the names of their rich and famous parents are common. ANd It's not a crime. As for the allegation of "peddling influence'. yes, this is called lobbying, and Hunter is a registered lobbyist. As for foreign entities, okay, perhaps he'll get a hand slap for not registering under FARA. As for the salacious stuff on Hunter's laptop, really? this is what you think is going to get traction against Joe Biden? How many families have a troubled sibling, a black sheep, someone who has a drug problem? How many? You want to climb on a lofty perch and look down at Hunter Biden? What kind of person are you? Hunter is a private citizen. Have you forgot?

Steve Schmidt, ( Steve Schmidt - Wikipedia ) sets the record straight.



So let's take a look at Hunter Biden's resume:

Vice Chairman of National Railroad Passenger Corporation s
Headed the Lobbyist firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair
Vice Chairman on the Board Of Directors of Amtrak
Developed Ecommerce policy for Clinton administration
Served on China-based private equity firm, BHR Partners, Inc.

Got his bachelor's at Georgetown and JD at Yale. That's four year post graduate degree, and Yale is not for dummies.

Now, yes, he's a black sheep in the family, no doubt about it, but he's no slacker like the right wants to portray him as.
Yes, I know some of you are going to post memes of Hunter smoking crack, but that only underscores the point given in Schmidt's video, and the point being made; he was an addict and has since recovered, even wrote a book about it, and what, you're going to continue to try and get traction out if ot in the foolish belief it will reflect badly on Joe Biden? Not a chance. People will see through any attempt to dehumanize a troubled soul in need of help, and his father's love, which the evidence proves, in spades.

As for Joe knowing about his son's deals and the right is trying to get a lot of traction that he said he didn't, but he did, actually, in my book, it's more of a case where Joe, being, at times, sloppy with words (like Trump is, but he is all the time) I think he meant that he wasn't deeply involved with his sons dealings, but this idea that Joe couldn't know anything about his son's dealings, that's not even logical, Hunter's dealings has been plastered all over the news for a long time. Clearly, Joe would have a cursory knowledge, but that doesn't prove squat. But, of course, those on the right are trying to get traction that point, but it's silly, whether or not you succeed at a 'gotcha' on that point, it's not a crime, so why harp on it like it is? Moreover, photos of Joe with Hunter's buddies doesn't prove anything more than a photo of Trump with Epstein proves that Trump was schtupping teens on Epstein's island.

What I'm trying to convey is let's dispense with innuendo, like 'biden family received payments' (if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just one or two guys making a buck, the old American way, and you repubs should be proud of Hunter's entrepreneurial spirit! ). Let's deal in hard evidence.

Got any?

I didn't think so.

Weiss was chosen by a couple of Democrats, the two Democrat Senators from Delaware. All he's done with the Hunter Biden case is cover it up. He allowed a couple of charges to expire dud to statute of limitations. This is the man AG Garland chose to be the special counsel. He's the last man who should have been selected.

 

[bripat9643]

Just as the accused has a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, There is also a presumption of there being no evidence, until evidence is presented to and proven in a court of law.

Who do you believe that presumption applies to, the House members?

 

[frackapisa]

I'd add the two dozen phone calls where Hunter put Daddy on speakerphone at business meetings.

I call your two dozen phone calls, with Devon Archers testimony to congress. In none of the phone calls to which he was on, was Hunters bussiness discussed to Joe.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yeah, we can. Joe was the only person of value. No Joe, no millions.

That isn’t evidence of anything other than you being easily biddable.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What job has Hunter ever gotten on his own, Hutch? It's ALL because of his father.

Uh huh. Says you.

 

[themirrorthief]

For all the hoopla surrounding Biden's laptop, there is this inescapable, inconvenient, and very glaring fact:

When a new administration comes to the White House, one of the many things on the bucket list of presidential things to do is to fire all the US Attorneys from the previous administration, and bring in the new president's own team.

Joe Biden did this except for one, the US Attorney Delaware, David Weiss (two, actually, he left Durham in place who hasn't come up with squat, either).

Why was he left and not replaced?

Because the previous AG, Bill Barr, assigned this Trump appointed Us Attorney to investigate Hunter Biden. When Joe Biden took over the presidency, so as not to appear trying to tip the scales one way or the other, he left Weiss in place to finish the job, the investigation of his own son.

Does that sound like the work of a corrupt president? Sounds like just the opposite, to me, and should sound like the opposite of corruption to any rational human being who doesn't kneejerk at the first bit of innuendo and scant evidence that comes down the pike.

The fact of the matter is that Hunter Biden has been under investigation by the DOJ, to wit, a Trump appointed US Attorney David Weiss for the last three years, and Weiss has, thus far, not given the slightest hint that the President has done anything wrong (only that Hunter might be indicted for taxes and lying on a gun application form, but I doubt there is evidence of taxes, maybe not registering as a foreign agent, or some minor charge which I doubt a US Attorney will have the cajones to indict a sibling of a US President on a chickenshit charge).

David Weiss, the US attorney who holds Hunter Biden’s fate in his hands - Washington Examiner

David Weiss, the little-known U.S. attorney for Delaware, will soon step into the spotlight as the Justice Department's prosecutor with the power to file potential criminal charges against President Joe Biden’s troubled son Hunter. Multiple outlets reported Thursday that the FBI believes it has...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

So, If the shoe were on Trump's foot, would Trump have left that attorney in place if it were his son being investigated? We don't have to speculate, the answer is no because Trump fired Preet Bharara, the US Attorney who sensed he was about to be asked to do something inappropriate, who was getting regular phone calls from Trump, decided it was best to not answer his calls anymore, to head that prospect off at the pass, so to speak, and a day later, he was fired. Trump's WH reeks of corruption.

US attorney Preet Bharara fired after refusing Jeff Sessions' order to resign

Manhattan prosecutor’s announcement comes day after attorney general told US attorneys, nearly all appointed by Obama, they should resign from their posts

www.theguardian.com

That is the one fact which utterly vanquishes all the hysterics and hyperbole surrounding the 'laptop' saga. "In my opinion" and it is my opinion because it's logical

I've seen all the 'evidence' presented thus far and, what I've seen isn't evidence. Oh, it might be classified as some kind of evidence in the evendiary list on some academic chart, but it's not HARD evidence, the kind of evidence that strongly, if not proving, an allegation. Remember, this isn't about Hunter, it's about Joe, and on that score, the score is zero. Last time I checked, Hunter isn't running for office, and THAT is why I don't think it should be about Hunter. Although, 'scuse my whataboutism, but Jared scored $2 billion big ones from the murderous Mohammed Bin Salman on the way out of his gig at the Trump WH, and what, crickets from Republicans? Oh, a House committee commenced an investigation when Dems were in charged, but stalled when Repubs took over. Someone's barking up the wrong tree.

If you think you got proof, put up or shut up, as they say.

So, Put up or shut up. I don't care if you are nice or mean, it makes no real difference to me, but the important thing is, let's be factual. Make sure it will withstand scrutiny in a court cross examination, because I'm going scrutinize your 'evidence', (if that's what you call it). Fire away. Oh, don't tell me to hunt for it, because I sure as hell am not taking your word for what the facts are, even your contention that you think the proof is posted elsewhere this forum, Speaking of which, I have searched for evidence on this forum, and what I see, I can easily poke holes in, and so, the hard evidence, well, it's just not there. If you think you got it, show me.

And confirming this fact is because if it were really evidence, the kind that a prosecutor has confidence in which will hold up under forensic scrutiny in a court of law, we'd have heard from Weiss by now, and he's just not talking. How much can be on that hard drive, anyway? How long does it take just to investigate one man? Three years worth? Bobulinski hasn't produced squat. And the so called '$3.5 million allegedly paid to Hunter from the wife of a Moscow Mayor'? Uh, no, his lawyer, George Mesires, told CNN that Hunter Biden was not an owner of the firm Senate Republicans allege received the $3.5 million payment in 2014. “Hunter Biden had no interest in and was not a ‘co-founder’ of Rosemont Seneca Thornton, so the claim that he was paid $3.5 million is false,” Mesires said.

CNN's Facts First searchable database - CNN

Search CNN’s Facts First database for fact checks related to the U.S. economy, mail-in voting, coronavirus, police reform and more.

www.cnn.com

If you have a problem with CNN, quotes are either factual or they aren't', either Mesires said that or he didn't. Even CNN won't deliberately misquote a lawyer, and if that were not true, we'd have a statement from Mesires, and there is none.

Moreover, Glenn Kessler, WaPos fact checker since 2011 confirms it:




In other words, There is no clear evidence that Hunter Biden received $3.5 million from the former mayor of Moscow's wife.

None, but that's par for the course when it comes to alleged 'evidence' from Republicans.

In September 2020, a Senate Republican report alleged that Elena Baturina, the widow of the former mayor of Moscow, wired $3.5 million to a bank account associated with Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a company co-founded by Hunter Biden. The report also alleged that the transaction may have been "linked to prostitution or human trafficking."

However, these allegations have not been substantiated by any credible evidence, and Hunter Biden has denied them. The report was also criticized for relying on unverified and circumstantial information, and for being highly partisan in nature.

It's worth noting that Hunter Biden has faced scrutiny in the past due to his business dealings in Ukraine and China while his father, Joe Biden, was Vice President. However, there is no evidence that he has engaged in any illegal or unethical behavior.

As for this:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf

It has been debunked here:

What to Make of the Johnson-Grassley Report on Biden and Burisma

The report doesn't break any new ground and highlights the decline of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

www.lawfareblog.com

The reports retread familiar ground for those who followed the 2019 impeachment inquiry. And it’s hard to read these reports and not come to the same conclusion as those proceedings indicated: Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma had no impact on the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy decisions.

And here.

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

[The] ...87-page report summing up the findings, released jointly on Wednesday by the Senate Homeland Security and Finance Committees, contained no evidence that the elder Mr. Biden improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed. In fact, investigators heard witness testimony that rebutted those charges.

I hear lot of innuendo, clever quips like 'Biden Family received $ from China'. However, it is notable that Hunter and his Brother equals 'family'. But, if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just a couple of Americans doing business abroad. So, when Republicans say 'Biden Family', they are hoping the listener won't notice, won't scrutinize the term, and assume 'family' includes Joe, so Republicans are intentionally being deceptive.

Is Hunter trading off dad's name? Well, he's admitted it, and so? Siblings trading off the names of their rich and famous parents are common. ANd It's not a crime. As for the allegation of "peddling influence'. yes, this is called lobbying, and Hunter is a registered lobbyist. As for foreign entities, okay, perhaps he'll get a hand slap for not registering under FARA. As for the salacious stuff on Hunter's laptop, really? this is what you think is going to get traction against Joe Biden? How many families have a troubled sibling, a black sheep, someone who has a drug problem? How many? You want to climb on a lofty perch and look down at Hunter Biden? What kind of person are you? Hunter is a private citizen. Have you forgot?

Steve Schmidt, ( Steve Schmidt - Wikipedia ) sets the record straight.



So let's take a look at Hunter Biden's resume:

Vice Chairman of National Railroad Passenger Corporation s
Headed the Lobbyist firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair
Vice Chairman on the Board Of Directors of Amtrak
Developed Ecommerce policy for Clinton administration
Served on China-based private equity firm, BHR Partners, Inc.

Got his bachelor's at Georgetown and JD at Yale. That's four year post graduate degree, and Yale is not for dummies.

Now, yes, he's a black sheep in the family, no doubt about it, but he's no slacker like the right wants to portray him as.
Yes, I know some of you are going to post memes of Hunter smoking crack, but that only underscores the point given in Schmidt's video, and the point being made; he was an addict and has since recovered, even wrote a book about it, and what, you're going to continue to try and get traction out if ot in the foolish belief it will reflect badly on Joe Biden? Not a chance. People will see through any attempt to dehumanize a troubled soul in need of help, and his father's love, which the evidence proves, in spades.

As for Joe knowing about his son's deals and the right is trying to get a lot of traction that he said he didn't, but he did, actually, in my book, it's more of a case where Joe, being, at times, sloppy with words (like Trump is, but he is all the time) I think he meant that he wasn't deeply involved with his sons dealings, but this idea that Joe couldn't know anything about his son's dealings, that's not even logical, Hunter's dealings has been plastered all over the news for a long time. Clearly, Joe would have a cursory knowledge, but that doesn't prove squat. But, of course, those on the right are trying to get traction that point, but it's silly, whether or not you succeed at a 'gotcha' on that point, it's not a crime, so why harp on it like it is? Moreover, photos of Joe with Hunter's buddies doesn't prove anything more than a photo of Trump with Epstein proves that Trump was schtupping teens on Epstein's island.

What I'm trying to convey is let's dispense with innuendo, like 'biden family received payments' (if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just one or two guys making a buck, the old American way, and you repubs should be proud of Hunter's entrepreneurial spirit! ). Let's deal in hard evidence.

Got any?

I didn't think so.

democrats are always totally innocent....ask any democrat...even the big guy earned all that dirty money naturally

 

[frackapisa]

LOL So your argument is that there is NO EVIDENCE against Donald Trump. Really?

Just like judges, grand jurors work for the court and must be neutral and fair: indicting persons accused of crimes where the evidence is sufficient to meet the legal definition of the crimes charged...

You give the profession a bad name

 

[themirrorthief]

Uh huh. Says you.

HUnter is a real man....you think its easy lifting all those bags of cash he took to the big guy

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Gee, Hutch...kindly explain the glowing letter that the Obama State Department sent to Shokin a little over a month before Joe Biden gave Ukraine his 6 hour ultimatum? The only thing that happened in Ukraine was that Shokin started seizing assets of the guy in charge of Burisma for corruption and Burisma asked Joe Biden for help. That's why they paid a piece of crap crack addict like Hunter (who the owner of Burisma said was dumber than his dog!) $80,000 a month to sit on their board!

I don’t need to explain anything. You do. You need to explain why everyone understood what needed to be done in Ukraine except you and the Republicans who are lying to you.

 

[bripat9643]

Just like judges, grand jurors work for the court and must be neutral and fair: indicting persons accused of crimes where the evidence is sufficient to meet the legal definition of the crimes charged...

You give the profession a bad name

That's how it's supposed to work, but only suckers believe it does.

 

[Rawley]

I call your two dozen phone calls, with Devon Archers testimony to congress. In none of the phone calls to which he was on, was Hunters bussiness discussed to Joe.

LOL Were you ever in business? Ever have meetings with potential clients? Ever put your daddy on speakerphone at even one of these business meetings? Let alone dozens of times? Please, you degrade yourself by repeating their absurd talking points.

 

[bripat9643]

I don’t need to explain anything. You do. You need to explain why everyone understood what needed to be done in Ukraine except you and the Republicans who are lying to you.

Only Biden's criminal cronies understood that.

 

[Rawley]

Just like judges, grand jurors work for the court and must be neutral and fair: indicting persons accused of crimes where the evidence is sufficient to meet the legal definition of the crimes charged...

You give the profession a bad name

Thanks for confirming you're not serious about having a discussion.

Bless your heart.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Since when is sworn testimony from whistleblowers not evidence?
Since when are bank records and money transfers not evidence?
Democrats used second hand hearsay "evidence" against Trump. Remember?

Bank records are records of transactions. Nothing more. It’s up to Comer to show what if anything is criminal about those transactions. Simply suggesting so means nothing.

 

[frackapisa]

That's how it's supposed to work, but only suckers believe it does.

It also means that facts discovered by the grand jury, constitute evidence. So there is ample evidence of Trumps guilty, as presented to a court of law.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You can call the "evidence" whatever you want, it still will look criminal during the Impeachment Trial.

Which of course is the actual point. Right?
Who cares if it’s true. It just needs to looks like it could be.

 

[frackapisa]

Thanks for confirming you're not serious about having a discussion.

Bless your heart.

That statement presents facts not in evidence.

once again: It also means that facts discovered by the grand jury, constitute evidence. So there is ample evidence of Trumps guilt, as presented to a court of law, and included in the indictment.