Notice how WTF always pops up whenever you call someone a "weasel"?Professor Poofter is the head Meerkat
He's the leader of the pack!
Originally Posted by lustylad
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/meerkat_manor
Notice how WTF always pops up whenever you call someone a "weasel"?Professor Poofter is the head Meerkat
He's the leader of the pack!
Originally Posted by lustylad
so your defense is denying your own posts as "fake". interesting approach counselor.It's called the Joy Reid defense strategy lol.
did you learn that watching re-runs of "Perry Mason"? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
... Not exactly, mate. ... YOU believed the laptop was FAKE. Remember? Originally Posted by Salty Again
Nope, how can I remember something that didn't happen? Originally Posted by Chung Tran
Posted June 6, 2021: I'm not buying the Hunter shit for now. Those ''the Big Guy'' references look faker than a $3 bill. Originally Posted by Chung Tran
I said exactly the same thing this morning, in different words. So... MAJOR FAIL Originally Posted by Chung TranReally? You're splitting hairs to double down on stupid?
It's called the Joy Reid defense strategy lol.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/claims...ert-fall-apart Originally Posted by lustylad
Without reading back a bunch of pages. I presume you admit you’re just speculating regarding Joe Biden’s involvement.
Well counselor, if we were in a court of law and I said "here is an interview Bobulinski did with the media and told us he said the very same thing to the FBI, would that be "speculation" or first hand testimony? I presented "the evidence" of an interview. Now I'm no English major but I don't believe that an interview that millions of people witnessed and millions have seen and read the transcript of on line, is "speculation". So no, I'm not speculating on the Bobulinski interview, it happened. Here is an interview, that as an attorney, you would kill to have since first person testimony is surely better than what you say happened, that Hunter merely told Bobulinski these things and Bobulinski never met Joe. There are at least 5 people that can testify as to whether that even ever happened or not. That is not speculation.
What is "speculation" I grant you, is what may come of all this. I am speculating as to the outcome, I am not speculating as to the evidence that has already been presented to the public and to the FBI.
That everything appears to just be Hunter running a game on people that believed that Hunter could get his father to influence anything. That aside from this Bubbles did you keep quoting, no one else with any credibility has involved Joe.
That's pretty funny counselor, since you just "speculated" that nobody else has involved Joe. You don't know that for a fact, do you counselor?
Moreover, didn’t Bubbles say he never met or spoke with Joe about these things he claimed to implicate Joe in and that his knowledge is based on what Hunter told him.
Nope, but thanks for confirming that you either never watched the interview or if you did, are making up shit you know not to be true. Bobulinski says that he meet Joe Biden, introduced himself, shook Joe's hand and told us what happened next. He was there as a job interview because no matter what deal Hunter wanted to put together, Joe had final say on who would be involved. Hunter wanted Bobulinski to be CEO on this deal and he had to get Joe's approval, hence Joe had to meet Bobulinski in person. That is not speculation counselor, I watch the words come out of his mouth on live TV. Go pull up the interview and get back to us counselor.
And I don’t know about you but I have golfed and partied with plenty of people with no discussions of note occurring.
Ever told a jury that can you can make certain "inferences" when presented with a picture of a group of men standing together, father, son and Hunter's business partners, that Hunter introduced these men to Joe, as his business partners and then everybody in the picture will be called to the stand to testify who knew what. That isn't speculation counselor, that's exactly what would happen in a trial of Hunter Biden. What result may come from the testimony is indeed speculation and juries speculate all day long on whether they can draw one of two conclusions from the picture. Hunter did or did not introduce his father to those men as his business partners. Now here is where you jump in and say "that doesn't prove Joe knew anything about the deals Hunter was making"! True, but what it does say is that if Hunter did introduce his partners to his father that day, Joe lied about never having meet Hunters business partners. One lie, maybe no big deal, two lies and the jury starts to squirm in their seats. Three lies, four lies, how many lies does it take to lose a jury counselor?
I shouldn't have to explain this to you counselor. You catch a person in one lie, then two and after that you can present to the jury that if this guy Joe has now lied twice to you, want else might he be lying about? This is where it all changes from the realm of the courtroom to the impeachment hearing where no crime will need to be proven to convince Senators that as President, Joe Biden lied to the American people many many times and it will be up to you Senators as to whether that becomes "un-Presidential" and worthy of removal from office.
Just being in a pic doesn’t really suggest much unless you believe every that is in a photo with another person knows everything involving that person.
You are right. That is what testimony is for and I am speculating as to the outcome of any testimony.
I’m with speculation just like the next guy.
Yes, I just saw you do it but when you say I do it, somehow it is what, less valid than when you do it? Again, the interview from a first hand account of a meeting, is not speculation, it is evidence. It just hasn't been presented in a court of law YET. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The difference though is that I understand it’s speculation and I don’t go stating it as fact nor do I believe my speculation to be the truth no matter how good it sounds to me. More importantly, I feel no need to argue or debate anyones speculation. We can argue and even dispute facts or known information. It’s nonsense to debate a made up possible fact since - it’s made up.
And there you go speculating again. And you just stated it as fact, didn't you? Amazing how somebody trained in the law can stumble so many times in one post.
It’s like debating whether Superman or The Hulk is stronger. No one’s gives a fuck because neither are real.
I’ll repeat what I wrote and maintained in every Hunter thread - don’t vote for Hunter. If Hunter did something illegal, Hunter will go to jail for it. Otherwise, don’t really give a fuck because Joe doesn’t appear to have done anything wrong. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
Joe doesn't appear to have done anything wrong unless you look at the fact of first hand testimony that Joe did meet Bobulinski and lied about it. He did meet Hunters business partners that he lied about and then we'll see if Joe ever mentioned all that money that Hunter gave him to fix up his home and pay bills but THAT is just speculation for now..Since you clearly can’t read. Let’s make this simple. What did bubbles testify to that JOE actually did or said to him. What you seem to be constantly referring back to from Bubbles doesn’t say he was told any of these things by Joe.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever