Why Did the Biden’s Create Over 20 Shell Companies?

[Skylar]

The investigation is ongoing. But, you know that. You pathetic poseur.

So, no.

That was easy

 

[BackAgain]

So, no.

That was easy

You are easy. Very simple. Simplistic even.

By the way, you also lack credible evidence about Trump. Difference is: that fact doesn’t deter you and your stupid ilk from making claims against Trump as though you had any proof.

 

[San Souci]

What was their purpose?
What service was provided in return for the money?
Me thinks Deep State is tired of Joe.

The Biden family opened more than 20 shell companies to hide payments and launder money, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) said Sunday.
After reviewing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) at the Treasury and subpoenaing banks and individuals, Comer posted on Twitter that the Biden family created more than 20 entities to accept, forward, and collect payment from a wide range of business associates.

"We found all these shell companies that make absolutely no sense," Comer told Fox News. "I don't believe they have paid a penny of revenue, a penny of taxes on most of the millions of dollars they received from our adversaries around the world."

...

"How did they list this on their taxes?" Comer questioned. "Is it a service they provided?"

To protect their laundered money.

 

[Skylar]

You are easy. Very simple. Simplistic even.

By the way, you also lack credible evidence about Trump. Difference is: that fact doesn’t deter you and your stupid ilk from making claims against Trump as though you had any proof.

The grand jury thought otherwise.

Why would I ignore them....and instead believe your personal opinion on the law and what constitutes evidence? You don't actually know what you're talking about.

And how many indictments is Joe Biden under? Round up.

 

[Nostra]

Everything on your end has collapsed, buddy. Comer is just making shit up at this point, trying to get anything to stick on Biden.

His 'judgment day' turned out to be an embarassing flop. Comer's claims of 'influence peddling' were such a humiliating failure that even Steven Bannon mocked him.

Your star witness was indicted for being an agent of China. And your 'tapes' that record Biden doing something nefarious don't actually exist.

So how many indictments against Biden is that?

Man, MSDNC sure has you brainwashed, Simp.

Now your story about a Chinese agent is changing.

 

[Skylar]

To protect their laundered money.

What laundered money? I thought you guys said it was bribery.....no, influence peddling. Now...drug dealing?

Its hard to keep up with y'all's accusations.

 

[bripat9643]

Nixon and morals?

That's not a hill I'll die on.

Says a douchebag who voted for Biden.

 

[Skylar]

Man, MSDNC sure has you brainwashed, Simp.

Now your story about a Chinese agent is changing.

Then show us the evidence that Joe Biden owns any of those LLCs. That any crime was commited with them. That Joe received any payment from them.

Your star witness was indicted as an agent of China, the 'secret tapes' don't actually exist, and even Comer admits he can't directly link Joe Biden to any crime.

Laughing.........even Steve Bannon is laughing at you.

Steve Bannon roasts Comer over Fox interview: ‘You’re not serious’

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon had harsh words for Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) over what he viewed as a poor interview performance Thursday on Fox News. “You have to be prepared!” Bannon said on hi…

thehill.com

 

[Nostra]

Of course they investigated the whole thing for 5 years and they found exactly what they started with,,. Hunter out of his mind forgetting his taxes and lying on a gun form which everybody in the world does and nobody ever got charged with any of this stuff except him. They found nothing on Joe Biden dipstick dupe...

That lie is falling apart right now at the hearing, Simp.

 

[Skylar]

Says a douchebag who voted for Biden.

Show us the evidence that Joe Biden received any payments out of the LCCs, liar.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to lie.

 

[BackAgain]

The grand jury thought otherwise.

You weren’t in the grand jury. And all a grand jury does is accuse. That’s not the same job as a petit jury has.

Why would I ignore them....and instead believe your personal opinion on the law and what constitutes evidence?

I don’t care if you choose not to accept my cautionary words. But you’re the dope placing credence in a GJ accusation as if it was evidence. Hint: it’s not.

You don't actually know what you're talking about.

I do actually know what I’m talking about. You may not. But then you are pretty stupid.

And how many indictments is Joe Biden under? Round up.

Nobody is under indictment until and unless they are charged by a grand jury (except that in some states a grand jury is not always required). Also, you dolt, while Brandon is the sitting President, he cannot be indicted. You dipshit.

 

[Skylar]

That lie is falling apart right now at the hearing, Simp.

Yawning....uh-huh.

Another 'judgment day', eh friend?

 

[Skylar]

You weren’t in the grand jury. And all a grand jury does is accuse. That’s not the same job as a petit jury has.

The grand jury indicted Trump.

Why would I ignore them....and instead believe you and what you believe evidence is? You're nobody. You have no specialized knowledge. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're literally offering your uninformed personal opinion as a legal standard.

How's that working out for you? How many indictments is Biden under again?

 

[bripat9643]

Show us the evidence that Joe Biden received any payments out of the LCCs, liar.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to lie.

The evidence is in 160 SARs and a 1023. These are official government documents.

 

[Skylar]

The evidence is in 160 SARs and a 1023. These are official government documents.

Show me. Don't tell me.

Show me the evidence that Joe Biden received any payment out of those LLCs.

You're a liar by nature, Brip. So you'll need to present the evidence.

 

[BackAgain]

The grand jury indicted Trump.

Why would I ignore them....and instead believe you and what you believe evidence is? You're nobody. You have no specialized knowledge. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're literally offering your uninformed personal opinion as a legal standard.

How's that working out for you? How many indictments is Biden under again?

You are one of the simpletons who continues to use your same line over and over again in support of your contention even though your one line was unpersuasive in the first place.

Why do you keep asking me why you should believe me? As I’ve advised you before: I don’t care if you ignorantly choose to reject my views.

You choose to be stuck on stupid. It’s a bad choice, of course. But you’re free to make that bad choice.

Now for one helpful reiteration: an indictment is a mere accusation of a crime. It is not, in any way, evidence of the commission of the alleged crime.

You are now free to muddle on.

 

[Skylar]

You are one of the simpletons who continues to use your same line over and over again in support of your contention even though your one line was unpersuasive in the first place.

Why would I need more than my simple question? You can't answer it.

Why would I ignore the grand jury...and instead believe you? You don't know what you're talking about. You have no specific knowledge of the law. You have no special insights into this case. You've straight up ignored the indictment's evidence.

You're nobody.

And an indictment is *way* more than a mere accusation. You have to have evidence sufficient to justify the charges. Probable cause for the warrants. Evidence sufficient to convince a judge.

You can try and equate any random shit you make up with a grand jury indictment. But that only demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[BackAgain]

Why would I need more than my simple question? You can't answer it.

Why would I ignore the grand jury...and instead believe you?

You already asked. I already answered.

I don’t give a shit if you “believe” me.

You’re an idiot. You’re free to “believe” anything you want. But a grand jury handing up an indictment is still not proof of anything in the case. <— That is the law.

I cannot help you if you’re so determined to remain ignorant. That’s entirely a “you” thing.

 

[Skylar]

You already asked. I already answered.

You've provided no reason whatsoever why I should ignore the grand jury. Or its indictments.

But by all means, Dunning-Kruger....tell us why the judges are wrong, the grand jury is wrong, the prosecutors are wrong and the special counsel is wrong. But how you've got what constitutes evidence figured out.

 

[BackAgain]

You've provided no reason whatsoever why I should ignore the grand jury. Or its indictments.

I never counseled, suggested or implied that you should ignore the grand jury or the indictment. Do you also suffer from auditory hallucinations?

Seek medical attention quickly.

But by all means, ....tell us why the judges are wrong,

There are no “judgments,” you retard. There is merely an indictment. An accusation. That’s all it is.

the grand jury is wrong,

They could be. But they don’t pronounce guilt or innocence, anyway.

the prosecutors are wrong

Political persecution is always wrong. But they (prosecutors) are the ones who carry the burden of proof. It’s our highest level of that burden, too. It has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe you’ve heard of it?

and the special counsel is wrong.

Political persecution is always wrong. But he carries the burden of proof. Not the defense. Not me. Just him.

But how you've got what constitutes evidence figured out.

Was that last attempt at a sentence intended to be an actual sentence?