Republicans who blast FBI's Trump search are prepping to snag Joe in a Hunter Biden probe
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (27)
sorted by:
Yes, because you definitely announce this before you execute it.
Republicans are full of shit. They're not going to do anything.
Republicans talk tough when they want conservative votes, then they become Democrat-lite once they're in office. This has been the trend since at least the mid-90's and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America".
None Dare Call It Conspiracy dates back to Nixon's first re-election bid. It's been a problem a lot longer than that.
I'm glad they mentioned Benghazi because shows just how long the GOP has been "investigating" without a single thing to show for it. Nothing will happen as is tradition. Just consoom investigation and get excited for next investigation.
They are just trying to call out hypocrisy in this article. It's all coming full circle with hypocrites calling out hypocrisy now.
The thing is, I've seen all kinds of incriminating evidence against Hunter Biden and I'm supposed to say it's fake Russian misinformation, yet I've seen really nothing against Trump and I'm supposed to believe the evidence is clear and insurmountable. So it's really not the same scenario at all.
No, but we should dumpster all the leftists and root them out of power for a generation first, then govern properly.
I love the "No evidence has emerged of this thing" line they always trot out to dismiss any claims they don't like. I started noticing it after the election, when the media collectively and conveniently forgot the difference between "evidence" and "proof", so they could use lack of evidence as evidence of lack in illogical factchecks that somehow worked with idiot NPCs. These NPCs will gleefully parrot the latest "Baseless! Without Evidence! Conspiracy Theory!" factcheck from The Cathedral, when any of us paying attention know the FBI wouldn't touch Hunter's stash with a 10 foot pole. The agents searching Giuliani's house looked through those hard drives like they weren't there, muttering "It doesn't look like anything to me" as they rifled through and bagged Rudy's personal possessions.
My favorite example of that was when - in a rare move for him - Barr put down his bucket of extra crispy chicken, and bravely got out in front of the stolen election claims to tell the media that he'd found no evidence of fraud. It was literally weeks after the election. It was days after Amistad Project brought out the truck driver whose truck of ballots was stolen. But Barr figured out an amazing lifehack - Can't have evidence if there's no investigation! <rollsafe.gif>
I don't know the nature of the "year-long investigation" here but why should that convince anyone? They aren't just politically biased - they are criminally incompetent. 4chan autists could find out more about Hunter and Joe's links to China in one day than federal agents would ever discover in a year.
What IS the difference between evidence and proof?
Proof is the beyond reasonable doubt, evidence is the steps taken to get there. Your knife being in the murdered's house is evidence, but its not proof because it could be innocuous. At least that's my understanding.
Gotcha. Thanks.
So the distinction is more of a legal one.
In lay terms, proof and evidence are used fairly interchangeably.
His example is good but it's not only a legal distinction. Colloquially I think mixing them up is even worse because while in a legal setting all the parties will know exactly what their own jargon means, to a lay person proof carries a connotation of "being proven and factual" that evidence does not. We all know you might need lots of evidence to prove something, but nobody says "ok so you've got proof but is it enough proof to prove it?" Admittedly the words are synonymous but I would never use them interchangeably if I wanted to be precise. And journalism should be a technical, pedantic field as much as a court of law should be. Instead, news writers like to play with synonyms to sway emotions one way or another. Had they used "proof" in all the above examples over the last two years, some normies might wonder "Ok so it's not proven, but maybe they had some evidence?" And we can't allow that.
I can understand the distinction and your point, but I think your expectations for the lay public and journalists is highly unrealistic and mostly semantics.
As a highly-educated and (hopefully) above-average intelligence adult, the distinction had never before occurred to me and even now remains fairly tenuous.
I simply do not ascribe to ignorance what can be attributed to malice. TV anchors are beyond retarded yes, but the influential urinalists who crafted this narrative know what they're doing and would put Goebbels to shame. Reason 250 why I gradually began to hate them...
Hunter and Joe are symptoms, not the source of the problem. A more reasonable compromise position would be to start by fedposting the top feds, then continue clearing out from there.
https://archive.ph/zQlO9
I mean, yes, we can see Hunter carefully salting away the "Big Guy's" 10%, but there's no evidence that affected Joe Biden's policymaking!
Wow I didn't fully catch the stupidity of that line. I was interpreting it as "the FBI hasn't found evidence of corruption", but it really doesn't even say that. Rather, in a weaselly, passive voice the writer is stating that - in his esteemed view - he certainly doesn't see how Biden's son's corruption could have affected the president's decisions. Then he stuffs an unrelated clause about some investigation (what investigation? the IRS probe?) in the middle of the sentence to confuse people. It may as well read "Nuh-uh, you can't prove anything!"
Notice that feint of hand “as president.” As far as I know, the allegations are of the crooked deals as Vice President, which is just as illegal. This obfuscation is why I hate journalists.
as president, his mind is already too far gone to personally negotiate and plan any crooked deals
I agree. Which is the one reason that I believe his claim that he did not know of the Mar A Lago raid ahead of time. Of course, Garland and Biden’s handlers were certainly looped in ahead of time.
These morons don't seem to understand that an appearance of a conflict of interest is, for all intents and purposes, a conflict of interest. Precisely because we can't know what goes on inside people's heads unless they come out and directly say, "oh hey, this decision will help my son!"
Of course, give Brandon another year or two in office and he may spill the beans anyway.
let's impeach trump for this thing biden is on camera admitting to
Yeah, good luck with that.
[X] Doubt.
Kevin McCarthy and his cadre of fellow Pelosi republicans won't allow it. The "red wave" is just going to get us more cooperation and capitulation from the GOP.