The ''Big Guy'' references have always felt phony to me. Real people wouldn't use that term. It's innuendo of the tallest order.
Hunter is a Lout, but he can be a perfectly good Lout without Joe.
Originally Posted by Chung Tran
Funny how things seem "phony" when you desperately don't want them to be true.
Try this, leave "the big guy" out of the equation since you have questions about it though I'll bet you any amount of money you want, that more than one person in the Biden crime family, has already confirmed to the FBI, that Joe was the "big guy". And why was he the "big guy"? Surely you have seen enough crime family movies where the head of the family is referred to as the big guy, a common term in criminal history. Bobulinski said that every deal Hunter made whether with China, Ukraine or any other country, had to be run by Joe. It was the whole reason Hunter told Bobulinski, why he would have to meet Joe, for his final approval to put Bobulinski in charge of the latest China deal.
I'd say concentrate on Bobulinski's testimony to the FBI but I'll also bet, that "feels" phony to you also. Am I right?
When Hunter talked excessively about how he was having to pay the family bills, including Joe's bills........ oh, wait, that probably feels phony to you also.
Never mind. What I'm wondering now is, what will you say when all this comes out? Will you do a John Brennan and say "I guess I was given wrong information"? Will you want to hold anybody accountable for these years of deception the way you wanted those in the Trump administration held accountable even for things they didn't do?
How about just this. Joe Biden has sworn to the American people that he had no knowledge of what Hunter was doing. Aside from any possibility that Joe benefited from Hunters deals, let's for sake of argument say he didn't. The NYTimes and Washington Post just confirmed and verified that what was written in Hunters laptop was written by Hunter and not Russia and Joe Biden says that "If" that laptop exists,it does or at least it did, seems as though the FBI may have lost it, so Joe lied when he said it was all Russian mis-information. The Times and Post says it wasn't. Joe lied.
What do you do with that bit of information? Or does that seem phony too? Joe also told us that he had never met any of Hunters business partners and then we see ( maybe you haven't seen it, maybe you wouldn't believe it if you did ) a picture of Joe, Hunter and his business partners on the golf course.
So like I said, lets say none of this confirms illegal activity by Joe. How about the fact that he lied about all of this? Could a President be impeached if in court documents, assuming Hunter is indicted or evidence is leaked in a plea deal, it can be proven that Joe lied about many things even if he did not benefit from an illegal act? Could a President be impeached without proving a criminal act? I think we already know the answer to that, don't we.
Shit, my bad, I forgot the new Rifleman, 1bm1 rule that there can't be any more "speculation" on this board. Only the facts mame, only the facts. Joe lied and that's a fact. What shall we do about that?