(07-21-2023, 11:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: I don't think that is any more shocking than the fact the Supreme Court is politically biased.

I'm sure that there are powers that be that want to keep the status quo and will try to maintain that.

When they announced a renewal of the investigation of Hillary right before the election, when they didn't push the laptop, pick a side.

AS a side note about the lap top apparently the issue is not whether it is real or really his.  The issue is the chain of possession and who might have done what to the laptop.  It's not like it was turned over the FBI and they simply covered it up and no one ever saw it again.

MTG showed porn at the hearing allegedly from the laptop.  

Info is out there.

(07-21-2023, 01:21 PM)pally Wrote: I guess it really doesn't matter because Rep Andy Biggs today said they are willing to look at the impeachment of Joe for Hunter's crime.  Who needs proof of guilt when you can use someone else's crime as the basis of removing a president?

(07-21-2023, 01:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What?  They said that the purpose of renewing the investigation of HRC was to clear her name, so that she would enjoy an investigation-free presidency, which was actually the right thing to do.  In retrospect, that is a mere footnote compared to what the agency was doing when it allowed her campaign to cook up the whole Steele Dossier business which resulted in crossfire hurricane.

The fact that this agency is censoring information from the American public, and allowing obvious untrue allegations to continue into lengthy and expensive investigations, all while enjoying handsome salaries on the taxpayer dime is a bit disturbing to me, as it should also be to you and every other American.

(07-21-2023, 01:35 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Head meet sand.

(07-21-2023, 11:25 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: It's fun watching people try to defend this crap at this point.

I am about halfway through the whistleblower testimony.  I'm embarrassed for the dems.  Trump this Trump that, Michael Flynn.   Like what are you even talking about?  Ask questions about the evidence that is being presented or refute it or something.  Rambling on about nothing because they have nothing.   It's pretty crystal clear by now that Biden and his family are crooks and the FBI, DOJ, CIA and IRS are politicized and protecting them.  So sad.

(07-21-2023, 01:43 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: The more I watch of this testimony from yesterday the more embarrassed I am for the Dems that are part of the committee.  One of them just rambled on about completely unrelated things.  One asked how this testimony was going to help racial disparity or something like that.  Like wtf drugs did you people take?  The comedy is amazing.  I keep waiting for someone to ask questions that actually pertain to the subject matter and are a counter to what the whistleblowers are saying.  Nope.

So far it's TRUMP!!!!!!!!!! and racial something or other.  I'm over half way through and not a single dem has offered anything logical to refute the whistleblower claims.

(07-21-2023, 01:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Either you're a very slow watcher or you forgot to switch accounts...lol. 

All seriousness aside glad you got a laugh out of it at least.  That's about all it was good for.

(07-21-2023, 01:56 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Oh no sir.  The funny part was watching the dems make absolute fools of themselves with providing absolutely nothing to refute what the whistleblowers were testifying about.  I bet you were on the edge of your seat though when the secret whistleblower was testifying about a Trump phone call to Ukraine.

Right, because it's not possible I had to pause it and go do some other things.

First quote I said almost halfway through.  Second quote says more than halfway.

Ms. Lee!!!   lmbo!!!!   She's all kinds of hostile.  Doesn't talk about anything relating to the facts of the testimony though.   Cause they got nothing to refute it with.

(07-21-2023, 02:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Eh, the Trump call was on tape...as most of his illegal activities are.  Wasn't much to it except to watch how his gop cronies were going to listen to him admit to the things he was accused of and then vote for him anyway.

Seems like its your first time watching a hearing.  I'll let you enjoy it.

(07-21-2023, 01:43 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: The more I watch of this testimony from yesterday the more embarrassed I am for the Dems that are part of the committee.  One of them just rambled on about completely unrelated things.  One asked how this testimony was going to help racial disparity or something like that.  Like wtf drugs did you people take?  The comedy is amazing.  I keep waiting for someone to ask questions that actually pertain to the subject matter and are a counter to what the whistleblowers are saying.  Nope.

So far it's TRUMP!!!!!!!!!! and racial something or other.  I'm over half way through and not a single dem has offered anything logical to refute the whistleblower claims.

(07-20-2023, 03:07 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: In legal cases, oral testimony or statements made by individuals involved are a significant form of evidence. However, the weight of this evidence greatly depends on the credibility of the individual providing the testimony, their ability to recall events accurately, and how consistent their statement is with other known facts and evidence. For instance, if a person has a history of dishonesty or if their account contradicts physical evidence or the testimonies of other credible witnesses, their words may be given less weight or even disregarded. Sometimes the way a person behaves during their testimony, such as their body language or demeanor, can also influence how their words are interpreted.

(07-21-2023, 04:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, that's right, BY.

Testimony IS evidence, but it also has to be cross-examined, evaluated in relation to other testimony. 

A whistle blower makes a statement. "My supervisor said X." That's not stand alone slam dunk proof. 
The supervisor also gets to state his version of events, his testimony, and then both are compared to what documentary
record can be had. If there is a conflict, then the cross-examination begins to resolve the conflict, if possible.

Most every witness statement in the 1/6 hearing was met with a storm of counter-testimony, at least on various media.  
That's why often see in such cases that people go after credibility--so-and-so's wife donated to the Dems. 
And don't shy from intimidation--Here are the addresses of his children, etc. 

(07-21-2023, 01:43 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: The more I watch of this testimony from yesterday the more embarrassed I am for the Dems that are part of the committee.  One of them just rambled on about completely unrelated things.  One asked how this testimony was going to help racial disparity or something like that.  Like wtf drugs did you people take?  The comedy is amazing.  I keep waiting for someone to ask questions that actually pertain to the subject matter and are a counter to what the whistleblowers are saying.  Nope.

So far it's TRUMP!!!!!!!!!! and racial something or other.  I'm over half way through and not a single dem has offered anything logical to refute the whistleblower claims.

Quote:

• Jul 20, 2023
  

FBI Document at Heart of Biden Bribery Claims Released by GOP Lawmakers
Chris Strohm, Bloomberg News




President Joe Biden, left, and Hunter Biden, arrive at Hancock Field Air National Guard Base in Syracuse, New York, on Feb. 4. Photographer: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty Images , Photographer: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty Images
(Bloomberg) -- An FBI document released by Republicans marks the latest attempt by GOP lawmakers to support their unverified claims that President Joe Biden and his son Hunter engaged in corruption in Ukraine.  


The document, a raw intelligence report that’s referred to as an FD-1023 form, was released Thursday by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. Conservatives have seized on the report to claim the Bidens were bribed when the elder Biden was vice president to help remove Ukraine’s chief prosecutor and stop an investigation into energy company Burisma Holdings. Hunter served on the Burisma board from 2014 to 2019.  

House GOP leaders have been advancing claims that the Bidens were each paid $5 million in bribes for assisting Burisma.

However, the document doesn’t conclusively show the Bidens received bribes. It cites recollections made to the FBI by a confidential source between late 2015 and June 2022. The source claimed to have had conversations with Ukrainian businessman Mykola Zlochevsky, who said he was coerced into paying the Bidens.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation criticized the lawmakers for releasing the document.

“Today’s release of the 1023 — at a minimum — unnecessarily risks the safety of a confidential source,” the bureau said in a statement. “Throughout the FBI’s engagements with Congress, we have been guided by our obligation to protect the physical safety of confidential human sources and the integrity of sensitive investigations.”

White House
The White House sought to discredit the document and noted that the allegations were already investigated by the Justice Department under former President Donald Trump. 

“It is remarkable that congressional Republicans, in their eagerness to go after President Biden regardless of the truth, continue to push claims that have been debunked for years and that they themselves have cautioned to take ‘with a grain of salt’ because they could be ‘made up,’” said White House spokesman Ian Sams. 

However, the US attorney in Delaware has said that the allegations are part of an ongoing, active investigation.

Efforts to damage Joe Biden over his dealings in Ukraine have blown back on Republicans in the past. Indeed, Trump was impeached in 2019 because he sought to press Ukrainian officials for damaging information on Biden, going as far as to withhold military aid to the country. Trump was impeached by the then-Democratic House and acquitted by the Republican-led Senate

The document was released without “critical context” as a “transparently desperate attempt by Committee Republicans to revive the aging and debunked” conspiracy theories against Biden and at the cost of endangering the safety of FBI sources, said Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Oversight panel.
 
Raskin cited a briefing that FBI officials gave to the committee in June saying the document was reviewed as part of an assessment done by federal investigators that was ultimately closed due to insufficient evidence. 
Zlochevsky Statements

House Oversight Democrats have made public a written document containing Zlochevsky statements from 2019 that contradict allegations contained in the Form FD-1023. The transcript was produced by Lev Parnas, who was working with Trump ally Rudolph Giuliani at the time to gather damaging information on the Bidens.

Those previous Zlochevsky statements were contained among evidence provided to congressional committees overseeing the first impeachment inquiry against Trump in January 2020.

Specifically, the transcripts show Zlochevsky in 2019 said “no one from Burisma ever had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him“ while his Hunter Biden served on the Burisma board. He also said Burisma never received assistance from Joe Biden or any his staff for deals or meetings with world leaders. 

Biden’s actions to remove Shokin have been subject to scrutiny for years. Biden and his allies, including officials in Europe, said Shokin needed to be removed because he was corrupt. 

In early 2016, Biden pushed Ukraine to fire Shokin, a position that was in line with official US foreign policy and other allied nations. Although Shokin had been investigating Burisma, the probe had long been dormant by the time Biden was pushing for his ouster, a former Ukrainian official told Bloomberg News in May 2019.

The conversations cited by the FBI source took place from 2016 to 2019, according to the FD-1023 document. Zlochevsky said it cost $5 million to “pay one Biden” and $5 million to pay “another Biden,” the document states.

However, the document doesn’t say Zlochevsky specified payments were made directly to Joe and Hunter. According to the source, Zlochevsky made references only to paying “the Bidens.”

Zlochevsky also told the source he had 17 recordings involving the Bidens, two that included Joe Biden and 15 with Hunter Biden, according to the document.

The source met Zlochevsky in person once and spoke to him twice on the phone and, therefore, “is not able to provide any further opinion as to the veracity of Zlochevsky’s aforementioned statements,” the document states.

Hunter Biden has previously said taking the Burisma role may have been “poor judgment” as his involvement with the Ukrainian energy company became a lightning rod during the 2020 presidential campaign.
--With assistance from Billy House.

(Updates with more details starting in the 13th paragraph)
©2023 Bloomberg L.P.

(07-22-2023, 01:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: republicans can't do anything but shoot themselves in the foot.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/fbi-document-at-heart-of-biden-bribery-claims-released-by-gop-lawmakers-1.1948539

In early 2016, Biden pushed Ukraine to fire Shokin, a position that was in line with official US foreign policy and other allied nations. Although Shokin had been investigating Burisma, the probe had long been dormant by the time Biden was pushing for his ouster, a former Ukrainian official told Bloomberg News in May 2019.

(07-24-2023, 02:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It'll be interesting to read the transcript from when Devon Archer testifies before the oversight committee.

(07-24-2023, 06:38 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Archer will confirm Joe Biden bribed Ukraine in exchange Biden go the Burisma prosecutor fired.
Fast forward and liberal media will claim Archer is a criminal and can't be trusted