Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99
Link one is Politico weighing in during the 2019 primary campaign with an article claiming "Biden’s image ... is clouded by the careers of his son and brother, who have lengthy track records of making, or seeking, deals that cash in on his name." But they go on to say, in this paragraph near the top of the piece, "There’s no evidence that Joe Biden used his power inappropriately or took action to benefit his relatives with respect to these ventures." So your first 'evidence' says there's no evidence.
'Evidence' in link two is sourced to 'Hunter Biden's laptop.' The story makes no mention of the severe credibility issues of this source.
Zero for two. Mark's allegation that "you don't give a shit about facts OR the law" is not challenged.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode
Thank you, DonQuixote, for once again proving Whell a liar.
|
What a couple of tools! Yes, the first link says exactly that. The point of posting the Politico story - FROM 2019 - was to illustrate that there's nothing new to the allegations. Folks have known about the unethical use of Biden's name in their business dealings for years. What's also interesting and unsettling are the individuals they've chosen to do business with, and the legal issues that follow those folks.
The 2nd link's purpose was to show that things have changed since 2019, and that we now know that Biden's denials about his involvement in his son's business dealings, including businesses linked to the Chinese Communist Party, don't survive scrutiny.
Leave it to you to septic tanks to lie and mischaracterize my post. This is exactly the process you use to "win" arguments.