The Durham investigation one is still there <snicker> |
The DOJ did their job convicting Devon Archer 😆 https://nypost.com/2023/06/07/ex-hunter-biden-biz-partner-devon-archer-loses-appeal-in-federal-fraud-case/amp/ |
Please tell us which ones are “coming true”. |
Political theater so Congress can avoid doing real work and serving their constituents. It’s infuriating! |
No, sweetie. This is political theater...... |
PizzaGate, of course. |
And yet, she managed to get meaningful legislation through the House and draw the ire of the right that put her very life at risk on 1/6. |
Please tell me you are not serious. |
Of course not. |
The most incidious power the media has is the power of ommision. Many things about Biden Inc have come true (laptop, 10% for the big guy, folllowing the $), yet very few within the msm are covering it. |
Has any of the right wing hysteria come true? They got lucky on the lab leak one, despite having zero evidence at the time. Apart from that most of the right wing stuff on DCUM has been dead wrong. Like when is Sidney Powell going to unleash the Kraken again? |
Being impervious to facts and reality isn’t a good look, sweetie. 😆 |
Ugh don’t bring the lab leak here. It’s been derailing threads since 2020. |
On actions not related to the Biden Inc... just like all the previous (Manafort, Papadopoulos, Page abd now Luft) charged for something different to scare them into not testifying. "Show me the man and I will show you the crume" - Lavrentiy Beria |
Your crime of omission is that none of those things have actually come fully true. The laptop for example has huge issues with reliability and credibility as the laptop hard drive shows evidence of files being added and altered long after it was in Biden's possession, the drive images are inconsistent, and so on. Some of the emails "found" on the hard drive were for example PDFs showing evidence of amateurish forgery such as misplaced and pixelated GMail icons. Lack of any reliable chain of custody would also make the laptop drives inadmissible in court. "10% for the big guy" a.) was only corroborated by a former partner under suspicious circumstances, e.g. some yet-unknown party paid off the $600k he had to pay in restitution on a fraud case upon which he very strangely produced "corroborating" information consisting of photos of iphone screenshots displayed on a blackberry connected to MTS RUS (a Russian cellphone providers) and b.) even if it was true, it pertained to a deal that never even happened. So, crimes of omission? That's on you... |