Hunter pleads not guilty.

LOL. He was describing him, not his function in the company in which he was not involved.

The article literally says Joe was involved in the CEFC deal according to bobulinsky.

“Another former associate of the first son, US Navy veteran Tony Bobulinski, publicly declared in October 2020 that “big guy” was a reference to President Biden — and alleged that Biden was aware of, and involved in, the planned CEFC deal.”

5% for the big guy.

BTW I’m still waiting for your source that bobulinsky lied…..

The article literally says Joe was involved in the CEFC deal according to bobulinsky.

“Another former associate of the first son, US Navy veteran Tony Bobulinski, publicly declared in October 2020 that “big guy” was a reference to President Biden — and alleged that Biden was aware of, and involved in, the planned CEFC deal.”

5% for the big guy.

BTW I’m still waiting for your source that bobulinsky lied…..

Still no proof except for Bobolinsky's allegations. One wonders why he came forward now and not earlier--who's pulling his strings?

I'm guessing this might be pertinent here:

"Sixty-nine percent of Republicans and those leaning Republican believe Biden is an illegitimate president, with over half saying there is “solid evidence” of that."

People believe what they want to, evidence be damned. That's the case here as well.

Still no proof except for Bobolinsky's allegations. One wonders why he came forward now and not earlier--who's pulling his strings?

I'm guessing this might be pertinent here:

"Sixty-nine percent of Republicans and those leaning Republican believe Biden is an illegitimate president, with over half saying there is “solid evidence” of that."

People believe what they want to, evidence be damned. That's the case here as well.

Do you have ANY proof that Bobulinksy or Devon Archer are making false statements?

It’s a simple yes or no answer.

Yeah Nah,
Doesn't work that way dude. The onus is on the dude making the claims to provide evidence to substantiate them.

Yeah Nah,
Doesn't work that way dude. The onus is on the dude making the claims to provide evidence to substantiate them.

So let me get this right. All eye witness are liars. The son of the president also lied when he said dad made him give half of the money he made.

And anyone you disagree with is a liar!

Ah hah the NUH UH! Defense. Classic!

No dude but, contemperanous notes and you know like documenting things ie., providing documentatry evidence might help.  Just staying, it provides credibitly much more in a legal situation than one person's word against another. It's what professional people do, so I guess that's why you don't quite understand.
Is there any kind of paper trail to establish these claims? All you have is a recollection of mention of a 'big guy' receiving 5% in 2017 2 years before Joe was even a candidate for president. So effen what!
Do you have you the same outrage for Evanka and her other half and their dealings while part of the  former nepotistic adminstration?
You MAGA twats can't be taken seriously sorry.

"But there is an untold, and far more complex, back story to Justice Thomas’s R.V. — one that not only undercuts the mythology but also leaves unanswered a host of questions about whether the justice received, and failed to disclose, a lavish gift from a wealthy friend.

His Prevost Marathon cost $267,230, according to title history records obtained by The New York Times. And Justice Thomas, who in the ensuing years would tell friends how he had scrimped and saved to afford the motor coach, did not buy it on his own. In fact, the purchase was underwritten, at least in part, by Anthony Welters, a close friend who made his fortune in the health care industry.

He provided Justice Thomas with financing that experts said a bank would have been unlikely to extend — not only because Justice Thomas was already carrying a lot of debt, but because the Marathon brand’s high level of customization makes its used motor coaches difficult to value."

Let's talk about the Supreme Court justice who is ethically conflicted. Since you're interested in corruption.

You MAGA twats can't be taken seriously sorry.

Name calling? How mature.

Let's talk about the Supreme Court justice who is ethically conflicted. Since you're interested in corruption.

I agree with you all forms of corruption are bad both from the right and the left. If you wanna discuss Clarence Thomas, make a Clarence Thomas buys an expensive RV with money a friend loaned to him. I’d be happy to agree with you it sounds shady.