The "deep state" is a vauge concept, what can you do? Apparently gender is too; well maybe the story is changing on that one. Amazing how fast people fold when they're "no longer" on "the right side of history".
'Gender' is not a vague concept. We are either male, female, or intersex, depending on chromosomes.
Your blind denials aren't worth spit.
You sure make a lot of vacuous/non substantive allegations. Requiring evidence to be conclusive when the stakes are one's liberty, or conviction in an impeachment, is not 'blind'. It comports to the cornerstone of American jurisprudence, that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. If course,. you are entitled to have your opinion based on your
scant evidence, as I have an equal right to demand conclusive proof since the objective of Weiss, Comey, etc was either to impeach or give criminal referrals, where liberty is, indeed, at stake, and for impeachment, deprivation of the highest office in the land, in my view, requires the same level of evidence, 'conclusive' before one can indict in an impeachment. Ignorance of it is blind, which, of course, that would be you.
Do you often find that completely blanking out on the definition of common words like "evidence" is "conducive to coherent thought or communication"?
Question is non sequitur, a deflection -- irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Your ability to stay on point is incredibly weak.
Refusing to answer loaded questions isn't something to be ashamed of, it's the only just thing to do in the face of such questions as such questions are disingenuous, which means they have a ulterior motive, to begin with. I can see right through your little game, well, excuse me if I refuse to play and let you manipulate me,.
So maybe you aren't foolish enough to be caught in your contradictory epistemological stances, but that hardly wins you the field. It's actually more like cowering under a rock.
Cowering under a rock? Let me spell this out for you -- refusing to dignify a loaded question isn't 'contradictory epistemological stances'; it's intellectual integrity. I mean, are you really that stupid? If your argument hinges on dragging someone into a rhetorical sparring match, maybe it's you who should crawl out from under the rock of lazy sophistry and try standing on the foundation of reason. Until then, you're just swinging at air, hoping no one notices the vacuum where your logic should be.
In short, Your claim is vacuous, non substantive, no path of logic, no substantive argument to support that charge, and by virtue of that fact, has no merit whatsover. If you are going to make an argument, you need to do better than dole out empty charges with 90 cent words hoping someone will be impressed and not notice how hollow your accusations are.
Of course not. My opinion on that point serves no argument, nor buttresses any point you are trying to make, so I have no compunction to not answer it. Clearly, your motive for asking it is disingenuous, has an ulterior motive. I'm sorry, I refuse to be manipulated by you. You'll have to find some other sucker in the peanut gallery.
Yep, the game is called "logic" and if that's a silly game there aren't any serious games.
Sorry, if you want to manipulate someone, find another sucker. I do not play games,.
Do you feel in control? lol
You assertion is a meritless excuse. I have already explained why the system of knowledge created by ignoring all evidence until evidence corroborates evidence would lead to zero accepted evidence and zero corroboration in all cases, an empty set of conclusions.
In Comey's House committee, the so-called 'evidence' the following statements are facts:
Not one document implicates Joe Biden, that is the immutable, incontrovertible, indisputable, fact.
Not one.
Not one financial document produced by Comer has Joe Biden as beneficiary or signatory.
The Checks to Joe from James Biden are loan repayments, if the claim is otherwise, where is the proof?
Not one LLC lists Joe Biden as an officer in a Shell. LLC shells have about dozen legit reasons to exist, and each have to be ruled out, and none are ruled out by the committee, their conclusions are assumed. hell, Hunter had 20 LLCs, well, Trump had 500. There is no 'abundance' here.
So...
Not one LLC has been proven to be established for a corrupt purpose as none of the 10 or so legitimate reasons have been excluded.
Not one taped phone call implicates joe in any wrong doing.
Not one testimony against Joe is backed by hard evidence.
No testimony given by Joe's staff against him. Other testimony lacks corroboration.
No testimony by Joe's sons and daughters are made against him
Noting that every email and text presented do not have Joe Biden as a participant in the conversation and third party mentions of Joe is hearsay and some have been established as fake.
Noting that the chain of custody of the laptop is not clear cut, and has the potential for corruption.
In fact, all of the evidence thus far produced, it only proves that Hunter Biden did business abroad, that that business is not against the law, plus the fact that he generously shared his profits with other family members, but notably except his father.
SARs are not proof of wrongdoing, says so right on the Gov website. In fact, if someone deals with large sums doing business with foreign entities, SARs are common.
FBI FD-1023 reports are not evidence, they are just FBI interviews of what someone claims -- they need to be corroborated, and none have been, to date.
IRS agents are not, by definition, true whistleblowers, their testimony is merely a disagreement with the prosecutors prosecutorial decisions, in which such disagreements are common, and not only that, their testimony was impeached by Weiss , Garland and Rep Goldman and Raskin.
That Yelena Baturina was not sanctioned is not a damning fact at all, as alleged, given that some 50 Russian/Ukrainian billionaires haven't been sanctioned, either, and she is merely one of many.
One 'whistleblower' is a fugitive, the other was indicted and the one who was indicted, his testimony was to be the centerpiece to tie all their suggestive 'evidence' together. It all fell apart with his indictment.
What I've been finding is that for every issue put forth by Republicans, regarding the Bidens, there is an innocent explanation. Oh, some things might look bad, but looking bad is not illegal.
The transcript details what services Hunter provided since the question is often raised.
All of the 'evidence' thus far is suggestive in nature, and not conclusive.
i.e. Blind idiotic pathetic skepticism. What's more is that it is almost certainly not your true epistemology, so it's also dishonest and hypocritical.
Incompetent rebuttal: an empty tirade of baseless claims and hollow accusations. Your misuse of 'epistemology' is not only awkward but borders on caricature -- it's the very definition of a malapropism. If you’re going to sling terms like that, at least ensure you understand them. Otherwise, all you’re doing is dressing ignorance in the guise of intellect, or rather, pseudo intellect, and frankly, it’s not a good look.
Here are some immutable facts for which you cannot refute:
Not one criminal referral, in a six year investigation into Hunter Biden, was made by US Atty David Weiss against Joe Biden.'
In those six years, two of which were under Trump, David Weiss did not find any evidence leading to criminal charges for
1. Money Laundering
2. Influence peddling
The tax and gun permit charges were known before Trump's term were up, yet he didn't charge then, so why did he wait?
I would venture to say that it is logical that he waited because he was looking for 1 & 2, because he knew that if he could never find the evidence, he had tax and gun charges to fall back on, as a consolation prize, which is precisely what happened, noting that, statistically speaking, few people are given such charges compared to the total who commit them.
The Comey Committee did not give one criminal referral on Joe Biden.
congressionalintegrity.org
