Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on September 28, 2023, 02:49:09 PM
-
A short synopsis….
GOP - Tons of evidence even more that we didn’t know about that was presented on here
Dems - But..TRUMP TRUMP TRIMP TRUMP TRUMP
-
A short synopsis….
GOP - Tons of evidence even more that we didn’t know about that was presented on here
Dems - But..TRUMP TRUMP TRIMP TRUMP TRUMP
Role reversal (sorry can't help it hehehehehe!)
Dems - Tons of evidence on Trump, 4 indictments!
GOP - But...BIDEN, HUNTER, BIDEN, HUNTER, BIDEN, HUNTER, BIDEN, HUNTER, BIDEN, HUNTER!
-
Role reversal (sorry can't help it hehehehehe!)
Dems - Tons of evidence on Trump, 4 indictments!
GOP - But...BIDEN, HUNTER, BIDEN, HUNTER, BIDEN, HUNTER, BIDEN, HUNTER, BIDEN, HUNTER!
We haven’t seen that evidence yet. Lol
-
We haven’t seen that evidence yet. Lol
Lol
-
Off to a great start. :D
So, they have expert testimony of what exactly transpired, and they won’t admit that testimony because it goes counter to all the claims the GOP is making? Somehow that seems about right.
---
GOP Impeachment Fiasco Continues: They Turn Against Their Own Witness
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=GOP+Impeachment+Fiasco+Continues%3A+They+Turn+Against+Their+Own+Witness
---
-
Off to a great start. :D
So, they have expert testimony of what exactly transpired, and they won’t admit that testimony because it goes counter to all the claims the GOP is making? Somehow that seems about right.
---
GOP Impeachment Fiasco Continues: They Turn Against Their Own Witness
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=GOP+Impeachment+Fiasco+Continues%3A+They+Turn+Against+Their+Own+Witness
---
Unless you actually watched it, your propaganda means nothing. With all of the evidence and more to come, they should skip the inquiry and go right for the execution
-
Unless you actually watched it, your propaganda means nothing. With all of the evidence and more to come, they should skip the inquiry and go right for the execution
"Evidence"
hahahahahahahahahhaaha.
What will your little excuse be when this doesn't pan out the way your retarded brains thinks it will? Go ahead and share that with us now.
-
"Evidence"
hahahahahahahahahhaaha.
What will your little excuse be when this doesn't pan out the way your retarded brains thinks it will? Go ahead and share that with us now.
This clown is still denying there’s evidence hahahahahahahahahaha
-
This clown is still denying there’s evidence hahahahahahahahahaha
This retard still doesn't understand what evidence is. "hahahahaha"
-
I didn't watch it in it's entirety, neither did Coach. But it seems the GOP's own witnesses said at this point there isn't enough evidence to support impeachment. Don't know why a coach would think they know more about it than the witnesses.... unless it's the same coach that knows more about everything than the investigators, judges, election officials....
-
I didn't watch it in it's entirety, neither did Coach. But it seems the GOP's own witnesses said at this point there isn't enough evidence to support impeachment. Don't know why a coach would think they know more about it than the witnesses.... unless it's the same coach that knows more about everything than the investigators, judges, election officials....
Of course he didn't. Even if he did, he wouldn't understand anything. Retardation is like that. But don't worry, his excuses will only get more far fetched starting next week.
-
Hahahaha.... even this dumb ass is smarter than Qoach about the witness. If they vetted all the witnesses the only witnesses they could call would be people willing to perjure themselves . Typical Trumpturds.
---
Bannon mocks House GOP over impeachment inquiry witness selection
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Bannon+mocks+House+GOP+over+impeachment+inquiry+witness+selection
Conservative podcast host Steve Bannon mocked House Republicans for selecting a witness who testified at the first impeachment inquiry hearing that there was not enough evidence to vote to impeach President Biden.
Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Trump, criticized Republicans leading the impeachment inquiry for not verifying what Jonathan Turley had planned to say ahead of the first hearing Thursday.
“That’s maybe not a witness I call initially to lay out the case. Maybe my staff should have gone through and asked questions like that in making sure in the traditional preparation of the witnesses,” Bannon said on his podcast.
“And if that was the professor’s thought, and that’s what he believes, maybe we sit around a conference table and say, ‘Hey, well, we have on the whiteboard that professor’s name. Why don’t we put him on the ‘maybe’ category? Why don’t we, maybe we bring him in in a couple of weeks. Maybe we don’t start with him.’ It’s just an idea,” he continued.
At various points in the House Oversight Committee hearing, Turley, a frequent witness invited by Republicans to testify before Congress, cast doubt on whether there was enough evidence to support an impeachment of Biden.
“I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment; that is something that an inquiry has to establish,” he said. “But I also believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden.”
In an exchange later in the hearing, Turley told Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that he would vote “no” if there were an immediate vote on impeaching Biden, noting that the purpose of the impeachment inquiry is to find the evidence that could, in theory, support an impeachment vote.
“The key here that the committee has to drill down on is whether they can establish a linkage with the influence peddling, which is a form of corruption, and the president — whether he had knowledge, whether he participated, whether he encouraged it,” he said.
On whether there was sufficient evidence at the moment, Turley said: “We simply don’t know, and we don’t even know if this was an illusion or not, but you can’t find the answers to that. I mean, the backend of these financial transactions, which I have read is where the committee is going, may shed light on that, but without that type of nexus, then no I don’t.”
---
-
I didn't watch it in it's entirety, neither did Coach. But it seems the GOP's own witnesses said at this point there isn't enough evidence to support impeachment. Don't know why a coach would think they know more about it than the witnesses.... unless it's the same coach that knows more about everything than the investigators, judges, election officials....
Actually I did. I work mostly from home. Keep up Junior.
-
Hahahaha.... even this dumb ass is smarter than Qoach about the witness. If they vetted all the witnesses the only witnesses they could call would be people willing to perjure themselves . Typical Trumpturds.
---
Bannon mocks House GOP over impeachment inquiry witness selection
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Bannon+mocks+House+GOP+over+impeachment+inquiry+witness+selection
Conservative podcast host Steve Bannon mocked House Republicans for selecting a witness who testified at the first impeachment inquiry hearing that there was not enough evidence to vote to impeach President Biden.
Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Trump, criticized Republicans leading the impeachment inquiry for not verifying what Jonathan Turley had planned to say ahead of the first hearing Thursday.
“That’s maybe not a witness I call initially to lay out the case. Maybe my staff should have gone through and asked questions like that in making sure in the traditional preparation of the witnesses,” Bannon said on his podcast.
“And if that was the professor’s thought, and that’s what he believes, maybe we sit around a conference table and say, ‘Hey, well, we have on the whiteboard that professor’s name. Why don’t we put him on the ‘maybe’ category? Why don’t we, maybe we bring him in in a couple of weeks. Maybe we don’t start with him.’ It’s just an idea,” he continued.
At various points in the House Oversight Committee hearing, Turley, a frequent witness invited by Republicans to testify before Congress, cast doubt on whether there was enough evidence to support an impeachment of Biden.
“I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment; that is something that an inquiry has to establish,” he said. “But I also believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden.”
In an exchange later in the hearing, Turley told Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that he would vote “no” if there were an immediate vote on impeaching Biden, noting that the purpose of the impeachment inquiry is to find the evidence that could, in theory, support an impeachment vote.
“The key here that the committee has to drill down on is whether they can establish a linkage with the influence peddling, which is a form of corruption, and the president — whether he had knowledge, whether he participated, whether he encouraged it,” he said.
On whether there was sufficient evidence at the moment, Turley said: “We simply don’t know, and we don’t even know if this was an illusion or not, but you can’t find the answers to that. I mean, the backend of these financial transactions, which I have read is where the committee is going, may shed light on that, but without that type of nexus, then no I don’t.”
---
Hey retard. How about going right to the source? I’m beginning to doubt that breathing in an involuntary reflex for you, agnostic and prime and that in order to alive you have ti be reminded to breathe.
There have been repeated references to the ten facts that I alluded to in my congressional testimony as establishing an ample basis to launch a formal impeachment inquiry. I have received emails asking about those ten developments so I wanted to post them. They are found in my written testimony, but I did not have time to go through them all in the course of my oral statement before the Committee.
While many have noted that I stated that I do not view the current evidence as sufficient for articles of impeachment, that is hardly surprising. This was the first hearing of the inquiry and was called to address why the threshold for an inquiry had been established. I was also asked to address the constitutional standards and best practices going forward. Indeed, I criticized the last two impeachments for prematurely declaring impeachable conduct without fully developing a record to support such articles. This hearing returned the impeachment process to a type of regular order in reserving judgment until all of the evidence could be acquired by the three committees.
Here are the ten developments that I cited as justifying an impeachment inquiry (a view with which my fellow witness University of North Carolina Professor Michael Gerhardt disagreed):
The record currently contains witness and written evidence that the President (1) has lied about key facts in these foreign dealings, (2) was the focus of a multimillion-dollar influence peddling scheme, and (3) may have benefitted from this corruption through millions of dollars sent to his family as well as more direct possible benefits. The President may be able to disprove or rebut these points, but they raise legitimate concerns over his role based on the accounts of key figures in the matter. Consider just ten of the disclosures from the prior investigation:
Hunter Biden and his associates were running a classic influence peddling operation using Joe Biden as what Devon Archer called “the Brand.”[1] While this was described as an “illusion of access,” millions were generated for the Bidens from some of the most corrupt figures in the world, including associates who were later accused of or convicted of public corruption.[2]
Some of the Biden clients pushed for changes impacting United States foreign policy and relations, including help in dealing with Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin investigating corruption.[3]
President Biden has made false claims about his knowledge of these dealings repeatedly in the past, including insisting that he had no knowledge of Hunter’s foreign dealings which Archer has declared “patently false.”[4] The Washington Post and other media outlets have also declared the President’s insistence that his family did not take money from China as false.[5]
The President had been aware for years that Hunter Biden and his uncle James were accused of influence peddling, including an audiotape of the President acknowledging a New York Times investigation as a threat to Hunter.[6]
President Biden was repeatedly called into meetings with these foreign clients and was put on speakerphone.[7] He also met these clients and foreign figures at dinners and meetings.[8]
Emails and other communications show Hunter repeatedly invoking his father to secure payments from foreign sources and, in one such message, he threatens a Chinese figure that his father is sitting next to him to coerce a large transfer of money.[9]
A trusted FBI source recounted a direct claim of a corrupt Ukrainian businessman that he paid a “bribe” to Joe Biden through intermediaries.[10]
Hunter Biden reportedly claimed that he had to give half of his earnings to his father[11] and other emails state that intermingled accounts were used to pay bills for both men, including a possible credit account that Hunter used to allegedly pay prostitutes.[12]
At least two transfers of funds to Hunter Biden in 2019 from a Chinese source listed the President’s home in Delaware where Hunter sometimes lived and conducted business.[13]
Some of the deals negotiated by Hunter involved potential benefits for his father, including office space in Washington.[14] At least nine Biden family members reportedly received money from these foreign transfers, including grandchildren.[15] For Hunter Biden, this included not just significant money transfers but gifts like an expensive diamond and a luxury car.[16]
These are only some of the serious corruption allegations facing the President, but each could raise impeachable conduct if a nexus is established to the President.
——————————————————————————————-
[1] Brain Bennett, Hunter Biden Sold “Illusion of Access” to Father, Former Associate Testifies, Time, July 31, 2023.
[2] Mark Moore, Court Upholds Bribery Conviction of Chinese Exec Patrick Ho Linked to Hunter Biden, N.Y. Post, Dec. 30, 2020,
[3] Steven Nelson, “My Guy”: Hunter Biden Partner Devon Archer Says Joe Biden was on Calls with Foreign Patrons for “the Brand,” N.Y. Post, July 31, 2023.
[4] Steven Nelson, Biden’s Claim he had no Role in Foreign Business Dealings “Categorically False”: Devon Archer, N.Y. Post, Aug. 4, 2023.
[5] Glenn Kessler, Biden said his Son Earned No Money from China. His Son Says Otherwise, Wash. Post, Aug. 1, 2023.
[6] See also Ben Schreckinger, Biden Inc.: Over his Decades in Office, ‘Middle Class Joe’s’ Family Fortunes Have Closely Tracked his Political Career, Politico, Aug. 2, 2019.
[7] John Wagner, Biden was on Speakerphone When Son Hunter was with Business Associates, Former Partner Testifies, Wash. Post, Aug. 1, 2023.
[8] Jessica Chasmar, Joe Biden Met With at Least 14 of Hunter’s Business Associates While Vice President, Fox News, July 28, 2022.
[9] Fatma Khaled, Hunter Biden Allegedly Threatened Chinese Official with his Father’s Power, Newsweek, June 22, 2023. The WhatsApp message stated:
“’I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.'”
[10] Anthony Zurcher, Senator Releases FBI’s Source of Biden Bribes from Ukraine, BBC, July 21, 2023.
[11] Jon Levine, Hunter Biden Frequently Covered Expenses, Texts Reveal, N.Y. Post, Apr. 9, 2022.
[12] Andrew Kerr & Jerry Dunleavy, Joe Biden Unwittingly Helped Finance Trysts with Russia-Linked Prostitutes, Washington Examiner, Sept. 27, 2023.
[13] Annie Grayer, House Oversight Republicans Say New Bank Subpoena Shows Hunter Biden Father’s Wilmington House in Wires from China, CNN, Sept. 27, 2023.
[14] Matt Viser, Tom Hamburger, & Craig Timberg, Hunter Biden’s Multimillion-Dollar Deals with a Chinese Energy Company, Wash. Post, March 20, 2022.
[15] Steven Nelson, Nine Biden Family Members Who Allegedly Got Foreign Money Identified by House GOP, N.Y. Post, May 10, 2023.
[16] Andrew Prokop, How Much Legal Jeopardy is Hunter Biden In?, Vox, Apr. 11, 2023.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/09/30/ten-reasons-why-the-biden-impeachment-inquiry-is-justified/
-
Hey retard, your post shows that you still can't master basic reading comprehension. My reply was referencing Bannon. Was yours? ::)
Try again manlet.
-
Actually I did. I work mostly from home. Keep up Junior.
Actually you didn't. You are a liar. I thought you knew that. Also, if you had watched it, you would be embarrassed calling for impreachment. It was obvious from the hearing that a call for impreachment was premature. So no.. you are either an idiot that lacks comprehension, or a liar.. Every witness said there was not enough evidence for impeachment.. are you smarter than they are?
PS. for the record, since you want to debate so much. Identify the fallacy
-
Both sides are mentally ill... We the people, fukk govt...
-
Actually you didn't. You are a liar. I thought you knew that. Also, if you had watched it, you would be embarrassed calling for impreachment. It was obvious from the hearing that a call for impreachment was premature. So no.. you are either an idiot that lacks comprehension, or a liar.. Every witness said there was not enough evidence for impeachment.. are you smarter than they are?
PS. for the record, since you want to debate so much. Identify the fallacy
There wasn't evidence either on the Ukraine call. But they did it anyway.
And this is why we are here.
-
Actually you didn't. You are a liar. I thought you knew that. Also, if you had watched it, you would be embarrassed calling for impreachment. It was obvious from the hearing that a call for impreachment was premature. So no.. you are either an idiot that lacks comprehension, or a liar.. Every witness said there was not enough evidence for impeachment.. are you smarter than they are?
PS. for the record, since you want to debate so much. Identify the fallacy
Hahaha. This is EXACTLY the type of "debate" he is capable of. A bunch of smoke, lies and whining that are as hollow as that noggin of his.
-
Actually you didn't. You are a liar. I thought you knew that. Also, if you had watched it, you would be embarrassed calling for impreachment. It was obvious from the hearing that a call for impreachment was premature. So no.. you are either an idiot that lacks comprehension, or a liar.. Every witness said there was not enough evidence for impeachment.. are you smarter than they are?
PS. for the record, since you want to debate so much. Identify the fallacy
Look, runner. You literally have zero idea of what you’re talking about. Just because someone states an opinion doesn’t mean it’s fact. Unlike the fake Trump hearings, the evidence (hard fucking evidence) is irrefutable and everyone knows it, Raskin knows it and every communist on the other side of the aisle knows….and they KNOW you don’t know it and KNOW you’re stupid enough to fall for it…like you did. Are you refuting the evidence that was presented beit during the hearings or on here?
-
Look, runner. You literally have zero idea of what you’re talking about. Just because someone states an opinion doesn’t mean it’s fact. Unlike the fake Trump hearings, the evidence (hard fucking evidence) is irrefutable and everyone knows it, Raskin knows it and every communist on the other side of the aisle knows….and they KNOW you don’t know it and KNOW you’re stupid enough to fall for it…like you did. Are you refuting the evidence that was presented beit during the hearings or on here?
The House Committees on Oversight and Accountability, Judiciary, and Ways and Means will continue to follow the evidence to determine whether President Biden committed impeachable offenses under the U.S. Constitution.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-evidence-warrants-impeachment-inquiry-of-president-bidens-conduct/
This statement released by the House Committee on September 28, 2023 following the hearing is not overflowing with confidence and conviction. "Determine whether (or not)..."
-
https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-evidence-warrants-impeachment-inquiry-of-president-bidens-conduct/
This statement released by the House Committee on September 28, 2023 following the hearing is not overflowing with confidence and conviction. "Determine whether (or not)..."
It’s called gathering more evidence. There’s nothing in that to suggest otherwise. You do understand who the head of oversight is, right?
-
It’s called gathering more evidence. There’s nothing in that to suggest otherwise. You do understand who the head of oversight is, right?
You would think after all this time, they (James Comer, committee Chair since 2020 and the rest of the committee), would have gathered enough evidence to impeach President Biden. Apparently not. Looks like they will be gathering evidence 'until the cows come home' or the election of 2028 when President Biden's second term of office ends.
But what the heck, if it goes on that long it gives you several more years of claiming President Biden will be impeached because the committee has hard evidence to prove his supposed 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
What was the relevance of asking if I knew who the head of oversight is? I assume you mean the House Oversight Committee.
-
Actually you didn't. You are a liar. I thought you knew that. Also, if you had watched it, you would be embarrassed calling for impreachment. It was obvious from the hearing that a call for impreachment was premature. So no.. you are either an idiot that lacks comprehension, or a liar.. Every witness said there was not enough evidence for impeachment.. are you smarter than they are?
PS. for the record, since you want to debate so much. Identify the fallacy
Do you really think Coach didn't watch the House Oversight Committee hearing? Well, that is his bad if he didn't, not that he would see what almost everyone else did, including many House Republicans which explains why puppet McCarthy did not ask for a vote to launch the inquiry. It is never a good sign when your own party doesn't support you.
-
You would think after all this time, they (James Comer, committee Chair since 2020 and the rest of the committee), would have gathered enough evidence to impeach President Biden. Apparently not. Looks like they will be gathering evidence 'until the cows come home' or the election of 2028 when President Biden's second term of office ends.
But what the heck, if it goes on that long it gives you several more years of claiming President Biden will be impeached because the committee has hard evidence to prove his supposed 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
What was the relevance of asking if I knew who the head of oversight is? I assume you mean the House Oversight Committee.
Do you even understand how an inquiry becomes an inquiry? And pretty much since there’s bank records (public that I’ve posted) whistleblowers, witnesses, texts, emails, photos and videos that tie him to bribery and treason is what established the inquiry to begin with as well as gathering more evidence. Keep making excuses and listening your leftist propaganda
-
Do you even understand how an inquiry becomes an inquiry? And pretty much since there’s bank records (public that I’ve posted) whistleblowers, witnesses, texts, emails, photos and videos that tie him to bribery and treason is what established the inquiry to begin with as well as gathering more evidence. Keep making excuses and listening your leftist propaganda
Yes I do, thanks to Trump being twice impeached following a House impeachment inquiry.
'First, the House investigates through an impeachment inquiry. Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".'
The investigation has been going on at least since 2020 and maybe before. By now you'd think the committee had all the evidence it needs. If and when they do; this is what would happen (follow the link).
https://www.usa.gov/impeachment#:~:text=The%20impeachment%20process,of%20impeachment%20against%20an%20official.
-
Yes I do, thanks to Trump being twice impeached following a House impeachment inquiry.
'First, the House investigates through an impeachment inquiry. Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".'
The investigation has been going on at least since 2020 and maybe before. By now you'd think the committee had all the evidence it needs. If and when they do; this is what would happen (follow the link).
https://www.usa.gov/impeachment#:~:text=The%20impeachment%20process,of%20impeachment%20against%20an%20official.
Would that be the partisan impeachment that was all hearsay “evidence” that later exonerated him by trial? If I recall they had to alter evidence to even come up with anything that led to nothing
-
You would think after all this time, they (James Comer, committee Chair since 2020 and the rest of the committee), would have gathered enough evidence to impeach President Biden. Apparently not. Looks like they will be gathering evidence 'until the cows come home' or the election of 2028 when President Biden's second term of office ends.
But what the heck, if it goes on that long it gives you several more years of claiming President Biden will be impeached because the committee has hard evidence to prove his supposed 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
What was the relevance of asking if I knew who the head of oversight is? I assume you mean the House Oversight Committee.
Reading Coach's posts are like reading a flat earthers attempt to convince you the earth is flat. So full of earnest passion, lots of links and photos, so little facts and evidence. But if it keeps him and us entertained, what can it hurt.
-
Reading Coach's posts are like reading a flat earthers attempt to convince you the earth is flat. So full of earnest passion, lots of links and photos, so little facts and evidence. But if it keeps him and us entertained, what can it hurt.
It’s not a wonder why you’re in the minority of what normal people think…”detective”
-
It’s not a wonder why you’re in the minority of what normal people think…”detective”
ok..."American"
-
It’s not a wonder why you’re in the minority of what normal people think…”detective”
Says the person believing in fake birth certificates and stolen elections. Neither that he can't prove. ::)
-
You would think after all this time, they (James Comer, committee Chair since 2020 and the rest of the committee), would have gathered enough evidence to impeach President Biden. Apparently not. Looks like they will be gathering evidence 'until the cows come home' or the election of 2028 when President Biden's second term of office ends.
But what the heck, if it goes on that long it gives you several more years of claiming President Biden will be impeached because the committee has hard evidence to prove his supposed 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
What was the relevance of asking if I knew who the head of oversight is? I assume you mean the House Oversight Committee.
From the other thread that was dropped where you were questioning evidence:
Well we do have evidence he lied in the debate when he said the laptop was proven fake. And we do have evidence that he lied when he said he never talked to any of Hunter’s business associates.
And whistleblowers have shown of government agencies blocking the investgation.
And there is evidence of Hunter saying his Dad takes half his money.
And now there is evidence of Joe’s house being the address for money transfers to Hunter.
So now, why do you think Joe lied, and why were people in the government trying to sabotage the investigation?
You are "in the loop" on this:
https://nypost.com/2023/09/29/the-no-evidence-claim-about-biden-corruption-is-looking-increasingly-ridiculous/
-
Would that be the partisan impeachment that was all hearsay “evidence” that later exonerated him by trial? If I recall they had to alter evidence to even come up with anything that led to nothing
I would not expect your recall to be anything but what you want it to be.
-
Reading Coach's posts are like reading a flat earthers attempt to convince you the earth is flat. So full of earnest passion, lots of links and photos, so little facts and evidence. But if it keeps him and us entertained, what can it hurt.
It does not feel right to feel entertained by this sad clown. Better we take pity on him so that if and when he awakens out of his Trump trance there will be someone willing help him pick up the pieces of his broken life.
-
I would not expect your recall to be anything but what you want it to be.
Are you saying they didn’t alter evidence?
-
It does not feel right to feel entertained by this sad clown. Better we take pity on him so that if and when he awakens out of his Trump trance there will be someone willing help him pick up the pieces of his broken life.
I find it hilarious that agnostic claimed to be a Detective at one point who’s job it to collect evidence…..but actually doesn’t know what evidence is?
-
Reading Coach's posts are like reading a flat earthers attempt to convince you the earth is flat. So full of earnest passion, lots of links and photos, so little facts and evidence. But if it keeps him and us entertained, what can it hurt.
he is the most skilled trollmaster on this site
-
I find it hilarious that agnostic claimed to be a Detective at one point who’s job it to collect evidence…..but actually doesn’t know what evidence is?
And I find it even MORE hilarious that a "coach" would feel competent enough to call into question a guy whose job it was to identify "evidence" verses noise, conjecture, innuendo... and was good enough at that job to be promoted through the ranks based on his ability to analyze and comprehend the difference between "evidence" and bullshit. But here we are.. 2023, a "Coach" who thinks the election was stolen and there is evidence enough to support that claim, calling out a former Detective, who is backed up by .. shall we do this again?.. Local courts, Republican Election officials, State Courts, State Supreme Courts, Federal Courts, The United States Attorney General, the Vice President... At some point, this has got to stop. Coach's opinion is not equal to mine.. he has no grasp of evidence. To pretend he does just allows him to further embarrass himself. His right wing buddies are doing this guy no favors standing on the sidelines...
I think we are well passed the "Claimed to be" at this point with me.. but the question is still there about Coaches mentality. I mean, to STILL think the election was rigged, you have to be pretty damn stupid... and I can't say this enough.. if it comes to light Coach is mentally challenged officially... I retract my statement. For a normal person to believe and post what Coach posts its just imbecilic.. if he is truly challenged, it's pretty impressive.
-
And I find it even MORE hilarious that a "coach" would feel competent enough to call into question a guy whose job it was to identify "evidence" verses noise, conjecture, innuendo... and was good enough at that job to be promoted through the ranks based on his ability to analyze and comprehend the difference between "evidence" and bullshit. But here we are.. 2023, a "Coach" who thinks the election was stolen and there is evidence enough to support that claim, calling out a former Detective, who is backed up by .. shall we do this again?.. Local courts, Republican Election officials, State Courts, State Supreme Courts, Federal Courts, The United States Attorney General, the Vice President... At some point, this has got to stop. Coach's opinion is not equal to mine.. he has no grasp of evidence. To pretend he does just allows him to further embarrass himself. His right wing buddies are doing this guy no favors standing on the sidelines...
I think we are well passed the "Claimed to be" at this point with me.. but the question is still there about Coaches mentality. I mean, to STILL think the election was rigged, you have to be pretty damn stupid... and I can't say this enough.. if it comes to light Coach is mentally challenged officially... I retract my statement. For a normal person to believe and post what Coach posts its just imbecilic.. if he is truly challenged, it's pretty impressive.
Fuckin’ hilarious since multiple posters on here besides myself including an attorney have posted actual evidence of bank records, emails, texts and videos that were actually entered into evidence (hard) that was the basis for the inquiry to begin with, and again, not hearsay.
Your turn, Junior
-
Fuckin’ hilarious since multiple posters on here besides myself including an attorney have posted actual evidence of bank records, emails, texts and videos that were actually entered into evidence (hard) that was the basis for the inquiry to begin with, and again, not hearsay.
Your turn, Junior
I have no problem with an inquiry. But some moron on this very site has called for an impeachment trial when the very GOP witnesses themselves when directly asked if there was enough evidence for an impeachment at that point said "NO". Oh hell, that was you... oops.. Did I type too fast?
-
I have no problem with an inquiry. But some moron on this very site has called for an impeachment trial when the very GOP witnesses themselves when directly asked if there was enough evidence for an impeachment at that point said "NO". Oh hell, that was you... oops.. Did I type too fast?
Yeah, you did. The witnesses aren’t the ones to determine what’s enough evidence or not. Your argument is THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Obviously there is.
-
Yeah, you did. The witnesses aren’t the ones to determine what’s enough evidence or not. Your argument is THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Obviously there is.
again, straw man argument... If you can find where I said there is no evidence, please post it... you won't because you can't
-
I find it hilarious that agnostic claimed to be a Detective at one point who’s job it to collect evidence…..but actually doesn’t know what evidence is?
I find it hilarious that he proved he was a detective with evidence and yet you can't understand what evidence is.
-
again, straw man argument... If you can find where I said there is no evidence, please post it... you won't because you can't
It's in that head of his. Keeping that extra chromosome company.
-
I find it hilarious that he proved he was a detective with evidence and yet you can't understand what evidence is.
I suppose I could ask the Gateway Pundit to publish an article full of innuendos that at some point intime I may have had something to do with Law Enforcement. I think that may be the only way to 100% convince him it's true.