@averagejoe1 saidIT wasn't "under oath"; it was an allegation in a unverified document. https://www.newsweek.com/everything-we-know-about-joe-bidens-5-million-bribe-allegations-1807068
You are a living smoke screen.
Not a single penny?????????????????
Here is just one piece of evidence. A long-standing FBI informant has testified, under oath that Burisma gave $5M to Joe and $5M to Hunter, you have multiple emails, all of that admissible in court....that is evidence. What we don't have is where the money is deposited, but I think, and you don't, t ...[text shortened]... creen is confusion over the difference in evidence, and proof. No proof yet, but evidence abounds!!
No, it wouldn't be admissible in court; it would be hearsay as it is supposed to be based on a conversation with Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky, who isn't available.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidWhat office did Joe Biden hold in 2017, 2018 and 2019?
This response is WORSE than a dodge, jesus.
Try just this one thing.
Joe has a company thru which he runs his money... it is called Celtic Capris. On his 2017 and 2018 tax returns, he reported that he had $12.6M in income for those 2 years. In 2019, filing his application to run for president, a financial disclosure, he reported that during those same 2 years, h ...[text shortened]... ut political advantage
Please get back on track and make this interesting....or be like Suzianne.
Anyway there is no discrepancy:
"The documents show Biden and his wife, Jill, earned a total income of $396,552 in 2016. They also made a total of $16,603,421 in adjusted gross income between 2017 and 2019, more than $15.6 million of which was from speaking fees and book deals.
More than $10 million of that total income was profits from Biden’s memoir Promise Me, Dad and $3 million in profits from Jill Biden’s book Where the Light Enters, USA TODAY reported.
Biden earned more than $4.29 million in speaking fees, and Jill Biden earned more than $700,000 in speaking fees, also according to USA TODAY. "
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact-check-biden-amassed-wealth-through-speaking-and-book-profits/5981003002/
@no1marauder saidwhat you describe is known as money laundering
What office did Joe Biden hold in 2017, 2018 and 2019?
Anyway there is no discrepancy:
"The documents show Biden and his wife, Jill, earned a total income of $396,552 in 2016. They also made a total of $16,603,421 in adjusted gross income between 2017 and 2019, more than $15.6 million of which was from speaking fees and book deals.
More than $10 million of that t ...[text shortened]... s/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact-check-biden-amassed-wealth-through-speaking-and-book-profits/5981003002/
@mott-the-hoople saidEarning money from book sales is money laundering geez you is stupid
what you describe is known as money laundering
@mott-the-hoople saidWhat it is is a redundant headache.
what you describe is known as money laundering
And he defends this corrupt family. Wonder what his 'out' will be when Sh hits the fan. He will have one, I assure you. A person of condescending nature has no semblance of humility.
Well, a lot fish to fry.
@mott-the-hoople saidWhat it is is a refutation of Joe's claim there was any "discrepancy".
what you describe is known as money laundering
@no1marauder saidThere's more detail here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-burisma-fd1023/
IT wasn't "under oath"; it was an allegation in a unverified document. https://www.newsweek.com/everything-we-know-about-joe-bidens-5-million-bribe-allegations-1807068
No, it wouldn't be admissible in court; it would be hearsay as it is supposed to be based on a conversation with Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky, who isn't available.
"The release of these documents confirms only that an informant told the FBI these things and an agent wrote them down, but it does not offer anything outside of hearsay as evidence."
"Politico asked Zlochevsky in 2020 to detail any contacts he had with Joe Biden from 2013 to 2019. He replied that, "No one from Burisma ever had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him during Hunter Biden's engagement."
1 edit
@no1marauder saidIs this where we say 'How do you know that??" Why, Marauder, could that be hearsay.?!! Your info? Is the source hearsay? Please do not taint the forum.
There's more detail here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-burisma-fd1023/
"The release of these documents confirms only that an informant told the FBI these things and an agent wrote them down, but it does not offer anything outside of hearsay as evidence."
"Politico asked Zlochevsky in 2020 to detail any contacts he had with Joe Biden from 2013 to 2019. He ...[text shortened]... ever had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him during Hunter Biden's engagement.[/b]"
And this link will further erase your taint in the above post, that they are not under oath. Headaches indeed, I will take an aspirin.
https://oversight.house.gov/whistleblower-must-testify-under-oath-and-in-person-rep-jim-jordan/
1 edit
@no1marauder saidpolitico and snopes 😂
There's more detail here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-burisma-fd1023/
"The release of these documents confirms only that an informant told the FBI these things and an agent wrote them down, but it does not offer anything outside of hearsay as evidence."
"Politico asked Zlochevsky in 2020 to detail any contacts he had with Joe Biden from 2013 to 2019. He ...[text shortened]... ever had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him during Hunter Biden's engagement.[/b]"
state run media says it aint so folks
@no1marauder
https://nypost.com/2023/05/25/comer-says-alleged-biden-bribe-was-5m-threatens-fbi-with-contempt-vote/
https://nypost.com/2023/05/03/fbi-file-links-joe-biden-to-criminal-scheme-per-whistleblower-comer-subpoenas/
@averagejoe1 saidYou claimed the informant testified under oath regarding the alleged bribe. They did not.
Is this where we say 'How do you know that??" Why, Marauder, could that be hearsay.?!! Your info? Is the source hearsay? Please do not taint the forum.
And this link will further erase your taint in the above post, that they are not under oath. Headaches indeed, I will take an aspirin.
https://oversight.house.gov/whistleblower-must-testify-under-oath-and-in-person-rep-jim-jordan/
At least have the good grace to admit you are wrong.
BTW, even if he eventually does, it's still hearsay.
@mott-the-hoople saidApparently to you "state run media" means every source but right wing propaganda outlets.
politico and snopes 😂
state run media says it aint so folks
Both of the articles relate facts; which do you dispute?
@metal-brain saidYes, four months ago that "bombshell" was released.
@no1marauder
https://nypost.com/2023/05/25/comer-says-alleged-biden-bribe-was-5m-threatens-fbi-with-contempt-vote/
https://nypost.com/2023/05/03/fbi-file-links-joe-biden-to-criminal-scheme-per-whistleblower-comer-subpoenas/
It remains unverified double hearsay that even the Trump administration did not find sufficiently reliable to do anything about.
@no1marauder saidSo is Trump trying to delete video footage in Mar a Lago. Hearsay.
Yes, four months ago that "bombshell" was released.
It remains unverified double hearsay that even the Trump administration did not find sufficiently reliable to do anything about.
2 edits
@metal-brain saidYou really don't know what hearsay is, do you?
So is Trump trying to delete video footage in Mar a Lago. Hearsay.
Any statement by Trump implicating him in illegal activity is admissible at trial. https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/hearsay-exceptions-admissions-by-party-opponents/
Another of your endless "false whataboutisms".