Who Approved Hunter Biden's Pre-Trial Diversion, Which Needed Special Approval?

[Hollie]

With intent. They did not. With Trump, they allegedly do. Like recordings and texts etc.



After they were found and voluntarily reported.

This helps show Biden had no intent.

Thanks for that


This statement shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

Everyone knows Biden had documents. They were accidentally packed by an aid. This is established fact based on sworn testimony.

Why would anyone think Trump planted documents that someone else already swore under oath that she did by accident?

You are flailing. You can't defend the obvious distinction between what Biden and Pence did and what Trump did so you just bleet irrelevant nonsensical statements.

Oh, I see. You know with 100% certainty while possessing 0% facts that Sloppy Joe had no idea someone put boxes of classified material in his garage, home and the Penn center.

Is that your best conspiracy theory?

 

[JoeB131]

A reasonable person could presume that Dem / Marxist cheats and liars are the real menace. You people thought you could perpetuate a Russia collusion fraud and not be viewed as the worst kind of hacks and buffoons.

What fraud? Frankly, that's the kind of thing that the FBI SHOULD look into. The Russians did interfere in the 2016 election, and Trump was cheering them on. Durham spent five years trying to prove the "Fraud" and just got one guy to cop to changing a warrant application renewal.

 

[Hollie]

What fraud? Frankly, that's the kind of thing that the FBI SHOULD look into. The Russians did interfere in the 2016 election, and Trump was cheering them on. Durham spent five years trying to prove the "Fraud" and just got one guy to cop to changing a warrant application renewal.

What fraud? The fraud, obviously. The fraud perpetrated by “Hilarious ” Clinton, Schiff and the Dem / Marxist party of Lies surrounding the Russia collusion hoax is still defended by Dems / Marxists because they have become little more than socialist misfits.

 

[JoeB131]

What fraud? The fraud, obviously. The fraud perpetrated by “Hilarious ” Clinton, Schiff and the Dem / Marxist party of Lies surrounding the Russia collusion hoax is still defended by Dems / Marxists because they have become little more than socialist misfits.

so your argument that Trump was Putin's "Useful Idiot" rather than his agent? How does that sound better, exactly?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Oh, I see. You know with 100% certainty while possessing 0% facts that Sloppy Joe had no idea someone put boxes of classified material in his garage, home and the Penn center.

Our laws our not based on speculation. They know Trump knew he had the documents; they don't know Biden knew he did.

Your thoughts and feelings on what is possible is legally useless.

Is that your best conspiracy theory?

It's not a conspiracy that Trump knew he had the documents and that we can't prove Biden did.

You are really flailing now.

 

[Hollie]

Our laws our not based on speculation. They know Trump knew he had the documents; they don't know Biden knew he did.

Your thoughts and feelings on what is possible is legally useless.


It's not a conspiracy that Trump knew he had the documents and that we can't prove Biden did.

You are really flailing now.

It's comically tragic that you're reduced to inventing goofy conspiracy theories. To make the nonsense claim that Sloppy Joe had boxes of classified documents at multiple locations without any knowledge of those documents is over the rainbow, ain't comin' back silly.

 

[Hollie]

so your argument that Trump was Putin's "Useful Idiot" rather than his agent? How does that sound better, exactly?

So, your argument is that the Dem / Marxist Russia collusion hoax is a fraud that others beside Dem /Marxist fraudsters should accept?

 

[Catsnmeters]

It's comically tragic that you're reduced to inventing goofy conspiracy theories. To make the nonsense claim that Sloppy Joe had boxes of classified documents at multiple locations without any knowledge of those documents is over the rainbow, ain't comin' back silly.

What I have posted is backed by law, both written and recently applied, and on sworn testimony.

Your belief is based on what could have happened.

Respond with an actual legitimate fact based arguement instead of flinging talking points seemingly at random that don't even make sense...or I'll find better things to do and you can pretend that you somehow won the debate to make yourself feel better.

It's your move.

 

[Hollie]

What I have posted is backed by law, both written and recently applied, and on sworn testimony.

Your belief is based on what could have happened.

Respond with an actual legitimate fact based arguement instead of flinging talking points seemingly at random that don't even make sense...or I'll find better things to do and you can pretend that you somehow won the debate to make yourself feel better.

It's your move.

You have sworn testimony that Biden didn't know he had classified documents at his home and elsewhere?

Precious.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You have sworn testimony that Biden didn't know he had classified documents at his home and elsewhere?

Precious.

We have sworn testimony that an aid packed Biden's boxes and moved them for him...under oath.

You have proof Biden knew he had the documents?

 

[Hollie]

We have sworn testimony that an aid packed Biden's boxes and moved them for him...under oath.

You have proof Biden knew he had the documents?

So, I agree. You have nothing to support your nonsense claim that Biden didn't know he was in possession of claimed documents.

 

[Catsnmeters]

So, I agree. You have nothing to support your nonsense claim that Biden didn't know he was in possession of claimed documents.

I don't have to prove he didn't know.

You have to prove he did. We know he had the documents. That in itself is not a crime. Prove he knew he had them.

Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Is that not how it works in Russia?

 

[Hollie]

I don't have to prove he didn't know.

You have to prove he did. We know he had the documents. That in itself is not a crime. Prove he knew he had them.

Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Is that not how it works in Russia?

I don't have to prove anything. This will eventually go through the court system.

It's really comical have Dems / Leftists will prattle on with clams of "pwoof" as they were humiliated by the Durham report showing a pattern of lies and deceit.

Innocent until proven guilty also applies to Trump, right?

 

[Catsnmeters]

I don't have to prove anything. This will eventually go through the court system.

It's really comical have Dems / Leftists will prattle on with clams of "pwoof" as they were humiliated by the Durham report showing a pattern of lies and deceit.

Innocent until proven guilty also applies to Trump, right?

Yep. It does apply to him.

Good thing they have recordings and texts and testimony as listed in the 37 indictments.

How many indictments did Durham get?

 

[Hollie]

Yep. It does apply to him.

Good thing they have recordings and texts and testimony as listed in the 37 indictments.

How many indictments did Durham get?

So, as expected, "innocent until proven guilty", comes with qualifications that Dems / Marxists invoke when convenient.

What a laughable joke.

 

[Catsnmeters]

So, as expected, "innocent until proven guilty", comes with qualifications that Dems / Marxists invoke when convenient.

What a laughable joke.

For example?

 

[JoeB131]

So, your argument is that the Dem / Marxist Russia collusion hoax is a fraud that others beside Dem /Marxist fraudsters should accept?

No, chat bot. Have your programmer explain it to you.

 

[Hollie]

No, chat bot. Have your programmer explain it to you.

Pretty weak, Chabot.

Schiff has given you orders to keep quiet?