Wait...the media lied by omission about her credit downgrade? I knew of it through the media amd so dod the did traders. Not a very effective lie, was it?

Do you have a link?

Believe what you are trying to say is that fact witnesses need not be subject to any scrutiny at all, as you appear to be presenting the testimony of one side as the ultimate truth. I disagree with this tyoe f thinking regardless of in an oversight hearing or a court of law.

The weakest form of evidence is the uncorroborated word of anyone, whether under oath or not. By your standards, there is no point of putting Congressional witnesses under oath at all. After all, they said it so it must be true.

Do you believe whole hog any witnesses on the other side? I don't.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-florida-standards-teach-black-people-benefited-slavery-taught-usef-rcna95418

I understand that the prosecutor says the investigation is ongoing and the defense counsel says the matter is closed.

I think there may be further investigations not involving taxes or guns.

Wonder why no lyric abut opioid addiction. Try that in a small town.


Oh wait...

The other thing that does not make sense is the persistent use of feminized nicknames. Most of us grew out of that by the sixth grade.

It certainly is a tell. Of what I am not sure, but I do have some theories...

I don't think there is anything biased in my recounting the actual history of right wing investigations. I note that you do not take issue with any of the history as I have recounted it. That history would lead any fair-minded person to be skeptical of this sort of thing.

You said I should "read everything" but I suspect that what you mean is that I should read everything that you believe whether or not it crosses any credibility threshold. Neither of us have "read everything. You do not have direct access to all the evidence ad neither do I. You were not party the negotiations that led to the plea deal and neither was I. Also, you have chosen to ignore what the Trump-appointed prosecutor and to say in favor of the Fever Swamp of right wing media. Asking me to be unbiased us a pretty big ask coming from you.

The obsession with Hunter Biden is an example of not knowing the difference between what you believe and what you know. Fir example, I believe that Donald Trump is a criminal. But I do not know that. If there is a conviction of on any of the charges, then that belief will become knowledge. If he is acquitted on all counts, then that belief will remain only a belief. See the difference?

Here is what we both now abut the Hunter affair: there was an investigation led by a Trump-appointed prosecuter and a plea deal was reached. You don't like the deal and I have no opinion. All the rest is speculation, opinion and belief being presented as unassailable fact.

This is a breakdown of critical thinking snd more than an amplification of what you already believe.

Based on my several years investigating whistle blower complaints in Corporate America, I still have some questions:

"Owed/unreported" what? Tax returns? Still not clear what you mean by "statutes were allowed to run". Statute of Limitations issue?

Was this testimony ever corroborated? Was the testimony ever submitted to cross-X? What has the investigative team said in response? Not trying to be difficult, but these are some of the ways proffered evidence is tested for credibility. This is how we get from allegation to proof.

If you would provide some links, it could help me understand the points you are trying to make.

Thanks for telling me what I believe. Back it up with a link.

You should try to get the attention you crave from someone else, but you will not get it from me. Try Mommie.

Game over, little troll.

When it came to Russia, I always said lets said let's see where the evidence leads. And you have no idea what I actually said, do you little troll? Or if you do, then you are a guttersnipe little liar. Provide a link.

Wasn't that investigation led my a Special Prosecutor appointed by Trump? Remember, the special prosecutor function is designed to be independent of political influence.

"Many feel" is not evidence. In any case, "Many feel" Hunter got exactly what any other person would have received--if not more, and that's not evidence either.

Please explain what you mean by low rolling ‘14 and ‘15 to let the statutes run".

No but I do not take as evidence right wing media hyperventilating. I am all for honest investigations, but I see so far are unsubstantiated allegations. But let's
review the actual track record of recent right wing investigations:

--After five years investigating Hunter resulted in three of misdemeanors.

--The much anticipated Dunham investigation which resulted in three indictments, and only one conviction (and that was a pretty chump change affair, given the effort that went into the investigation.

--Gal Luft (the missing witness of the House Oversight Committee), who when, when found turned out he was on the lam running from his own indictment. No wonder he was on the lam.

--And of course, Benghazi that turning up zip after years of investigation. Fun fact: My Kevin even admitted that the whole Benghazi thing was political.

Impressive track record, right? And just as a thought experiment, compare that track record with Jack Smith. m\My money is on Smith, but that's just me.

What caught my eye was the title of the thread. How much evidence is enough? Still a fair question that MAGA Nation should be asking itself. But if you can't tell the difference between allegations and evidence, this is where you will find yourself.

When there are indictments, I will pat attention. While the walls close in on Criminal Defendant Trump, the right wing noise machine will do what it does: generate noise. And right wing noise will not help him now.

I will pay attention when there is an indictment.

In the meantime, this is a question everyone in Trump Town should answer. Because, you know, there are indictments.

As they say where I'm from: Nothing to be learned from the second kick of a mule.