thx for the clarifications - gratified to see that your source was not Joe Rogan.tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:40 amHa ha... aren't you clever kismet!
Of course if you only read the NYT or WaPo or only tune into CNN and MSNBC you wouldn't know, would you. So far the left-leaning legacy media only presents criticism of the R's investigation and ignores the mounting evidence. If I were to post articles by right-leaning platforms you would dismiss those off hand in a nanosecond and in classic snarky fashion I'm sure.
I have listened to the WB's testimony and interviews with people like Bobulinski and Archer. If you haven't done so, I suggest you do. You might also try listening to independent news podcasts like The Hill Rising or Breaking Points. Both have covered (objectively IMO) and continue to cover the Biden's business dealings as new info becomes available. My guess is, until more evidence comes to light implicating the Big Guy, and/or until your favorite lefty outlets start to cover that, you'll continue to ignore. That's fine of course and certainly expected.
Heads up: Eric Schwerin to testify in early Sept.
https://www.anews.com.tr/americas/2023/ ... eign-deals
"EVIDENCE implicating Uncle Joe". As posted last week, I correctly referred to the mounting evidence as "circumstantial". I made the mistake yesterday of not including that important differentiation. To my knowledge there isn't direct evidence as of yet, but if the investigations are allowed to continue and Weiss/Garland don't figure out a way to stifle that effort, direct evidence and the truth will come out.
mdlax's mocking post to follow
I'm sure you will remind me when the media sources you claim I use to the exclusion of any you use actually report any tangible or otherwise admissible evidence in the case.
I'd also quibble with your description of "cicrumstantial" preferring perhaps "hearsay" maybe at this point in time.