Because this is truly the beginning of the end of the Biden crime syndicate.
https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1749794250793881992
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:53:08 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 1/24/24 11:49 AM, ScottW wrote:
Because this is truly the beginning of the end of the Biden crime syndicate.Gonna guess this is about Comer's Oversight Committee.
https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1749794250793881992
https://news.yahoo.com/transcript-blows-james-comer-entire-191923684.html
"The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released the transcript of the
testimony of Kevin Morris, a friend of and attorney for Hunter Biden,
and his statements undercut everything Republicans have said about the
embattled first son."
Turns out Comer's initial release was misleadingly cherry-picked.
"Morris’s lawyer accused Comer last week of grossly misrepresenting what >> Morris actually said during his deposition. Bryan Sullivan slammed
Comer’s “cherry‐picked, out of context and totally misleading” press >> release and demanded the representative release the full transcript."
So you won't read the transcript but you'll read the "spin". Typical.
You never could think for yourself.
On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 1:56:21 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 1/25/24 11:17 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:53:08 AM UTC-8, mINE109I presume you linked Comer's spin. How is it "spin" to supply the
wrote:
On 1/24/24 11:49 AM, ScottW wrote:
Because this is truly the beginning of the end of the BidenGonna guess this is about Comer's Oversight Committee.
crime syndicate.
https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1749794250793881992
https://news.yahoo.com/transcript-blows-james-comer-entire-191923684.html >>>>
"The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released the transcript of the >>>> testimony of Kevin Morris, a friend of and attorney for Hunter
Biden, and his statements undercut everything Republicans have
said about the embattled first son."
Turns out Comer's initial release was misleadingly
cherry-picked.
"Morris’s lawyer accused Comer last week of grossly
misrepresenting what Morris actually said during his
deposition. Bryan Sullivan slammed Comer’s “cherry‐picked, out
of context and totally misleading” press release and demanded
the representative release the full transcript."
So you won't read the transcript but you'll read the "spin".
Typical. You never could think for yourself.
facts
You have a funny definition of the facts.
You won't read what was said but will jump all in on a 3rd party interpretation. You have the link on the redacted transcript which
you know is all they can release for now. It's damning....and all the
pig squealing shows how damning it truly is.
On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 11:46:50 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 1/26/24 10:33 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 1:56:21 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, it's the usual definition: objective,
On 1/25/24 11:17 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:53:08 AM UTC-8, mINE109I presume you linked Comer's spin. How is it "spin" to supply the
wrote:
On 1/24/24 11:49 AM, ScottW wrote:
Because this is truly the beginning of the end of the BidenGonna guess this is about Comer's Oversight Committee.
crime syndicate.
https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1749794250793881992
https://news.yahoo.com/transcript-blows-james-comer-entire-191923684.html
"The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released the transcript of the >>>>>> testimony of Kevin Morris, a friend of and attorney for Hunter
Biden, and his statements undercut everything Republicans have
said about the embattled first son."
Turns out Comer's initial release was misleadingly
cherry-picked.
"Morris’s lawyer accused Comer last week of grossly
misrepresenting what Morris actually said during his
deposition. Bryan Sullivan slammed Comer’s “cherry‐picked, out >>>>>> of context and totally misleading” press release and demanded
the representative release the full transcript."
So you won't read the transcript but you'll read the "spin".
Typical. You never could think for yourself.
facts
You have a funny definition of the facts.
That first one is a brick wall upon which your brain remains splattered.
falsifiable, etc.
You won't read what was said but will jump all in on a 3rd partyYou snipped the link to the transcript that I read. The redactions are
interpretation. You have the link on the redacted transcript which
you know is all they can release for now. It's damning....and all the
pig squealing shows how damning it truly is.
minor, which you would know if *you* had read it.
Exactly...so you have no excuse in not reading it.
What's damning is Comer misrepresenting the contents.
Except he clearly did not. And that is objective fact.
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 7:31:36 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 1/26/24 4:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 11:46:50 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:I'm up on the definition of objective. No walls or splatter.
On 1/26/24 10:33 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 1:56:21 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 1/25/24 11:17 AM, ScottW wrote:No, it's the usual definition: objective,
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:53:08 AM UTC-8, mINE109I presume you linked Comer's spin. How is it "spin" to supply the
wrote:
On 1/24/24 11:49 AM, ScottW wrote:
Because this is truly the beginning of the end of the BidenGonna guess this is about Comer's Oversight Committee.
crime syndicate.
https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1749794250793881992
https://news.yahoo.com/transcript-blows-james-comer-entire-191923684.html
"The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released the transcript of the
testimony of Kevin Morris, a friend of and attorney for Hunter >>>>>>>> Biden, and his statements undercut everything Republicans have >>>>>>>> said about the embattled first son."
Turns out Comer's initial release was misleadingly
cherry-picked.
"Morris’s lawyer accused Comer last week of grossly
misrepresenting what Morris actually said during his
deposition. Bryan Sullivan slammed Comer’s “cherry‐picked, out >>>>>>>> of context and totally misleading” press release and demanded >>>>>>>> the representative release the full transcript."
So you won't read the transcript but you'll read the "spin".
Typical. You never could think for yourself.
facts
You have a funny definition of the facts.
That first one is a brick wall upon which your brain remains splattered.
falsifiable, etc.The fact is he said it showed things it does not, in this case the
You won't read what was said but will jump all in on a 3rd partyYou snipped the link to the transcript that I read. The redactions are >>>> minor, which you would know if *you* had read it.
interpretation. You have the link on the redacted transcript which
you know is all they can release for now. It's damning....and all the >>>>> pig squealing shows how damning it truly is.
Exactly...so you have no excuse in not reading it.
What's damning is Comer misrepresenting the contents.
Except he clearly did not. And that is objective fact.
nature of Morris's loans.
Loans for everyone. Every sleazy transaction is a loan.
And this one has zero interest and may be forgiven.
Can you get a loan like that?
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 9:23:45 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 1/27/24 10:42 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 7:31:36 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:Morris said there's a valid promissory note with a "legal interest
On 1/26/24 4:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 11:46:50 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:The fact is he said it showed things it does not, in this case the
On 1/26/24 10:33 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 1:56:21 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/25/24 11:17 AM, ScottW wrote:No, it's the usual definition: objective,
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:53:08 AM UTC-8, mINE109 >>>>>>>>> wrote:I presume you linked Comer's spin. How is it "spin" to supply the >>>>>>>> facts
On 1/24/24 11:49 AM, ScottW wrote:
Because this is truly the beginning of the end of the Biden >>>>>>>>>>> crime syndicate.
https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1749794250793881992 >>>>>>>>>> Gonna guess this is about Comer's Oversight Committee.
https://news.yahoo.com/transcript-blows-james-comer-entire-191923684.html
"The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released the transcript of the
testimony of Kevin Morris, a friend of and attorney for Hunter >>>>>>>>>> Biden, and his statements undercut everything Republicans have >>>>>>>>>> said about the embattled first son."
Turns out Comer's initial release was misleadingly
cherry-picked.
"Morris’s lawyer accused Comer last week of grossly
misrepresenting what Morris actually said during his
deposition. Bryan Sullivan slammed Comer’s “cherry‐picked, out >>>>>>>>>> of context and totally misleading” press release and demanded >>>>>>>>>> the representative release the full transcript."
So you won't read the transcript but you'll read the "spin". >>>>>>>>> Typical. You never could think for yourself.
You have a funny definition of the facts.
That first one is a brick wall upon which your brain remains splattered. >>>> I'm up on the definition of objective. No walls or splatter.
falsifiable, etc.
You won't read what was said but will jump all in on a 3rd party >>>>>>> interpretation. You have the link on the redacted transcript which >>>>>>> you know is all they can release for now. It's damning....and all the >>>>>>> pig squealing shows how damning it truly is.You snipped the link to the transcript that I read. The redactions are >>>>>> minor, which you would know if *you* had read it.
Exactly...so you have no excuse in not reading it.
What's damning is Comer misrepresenting the contents.
Except he clearly did not. And that is objective fact.
nature of Morris's loans.
Loans for everyone. Every sleazy transaction is a loan.
And this one has zero interest and may be forgiven.
rate." That it could be forgiven is Comer speculation due to fact that
the loans may not yet be due.
Can you get a loan like that?Yes, from family, friends or anyone who knows how to draft a legal
promissory note.
From the transcript, "So each time that Hunter Biden gets a loan from you, does he have to come to you
18 and tell you what he's getting that loan for?
19 A Hunter doesn't ask -- Hunter doesn't come to me. He's never asked me for 20 anything. I've done these things voluntarily. I have an idea of what they were, and I
21 keep a record. And the ones that are absolutely necessary I take care of with a loan. "
He's Hunter's sugar Daddy.
On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 10:47:00 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 1/27/24 7:02 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 9:23:45 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 1/27/24 10:42 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 7:31:36 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
Sugar daddies don't do promissory notesMorris said there's a valid promissory note with a "legal interestThe fact is he said it showed things it does not, in this case the >>>>>> nature of Morris's loans.What's damning is Comer misrepresenting the contents.
Except he clearly did not. And that is objective fact.
Loans for everyone. Every sleazy transaction is a loan.
And this one has zero interest and may be forgiven.
rate." That it could be forgiven is Comer speculation due to fact that >>>> the loans may not yet be due.
Can you get a loan like that?Yes, from family, friends or anyone who knows how to draft a legal
promissory note.
From the transcript, "So each time that Hunter Biden gets a loan from you, does he have to come to you
18 and tell you what he's getting that loan for?
19 A Hunter doesn't ask -- Hunter doesn't come to me. He's never asked me for
20 anything. I've done these things voluntarily. I have an idea of what they were, and I
21 keep a record. And the ones that are absolutely necessary I take care of with a loan. "
He's Hunter's sugar Daddy.
Show us the notes. He claims he "loaned money" Hunter never asked for.
How does that work?
Show us the notes. He claims he "loaned money" Hunter never asked for.Morris was Hunter's attorney.
How does that work?
And the Ca. Bar prohibits an attorney from lending their clients money. Apparently, they don't want "attorney-client" privilege to extend to coverup of laundering money.
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 4:19:12 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 1/29/24 6:02 PM, ScottW wrote:
You're misreading the rule:Show us the notes. He claims he "loaned money" Hunter never asked for. >>>>> How does that work?Morris was Hunter's attorney.
And the Ca. Bar prohibits an attorney from lending their clients money.
Apparently, they don't want "attorney-client" privilege to extend to coverup
of laundering money.
https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rule_1.8.5-Exec_Summary-Redline.pdf
If you stopped here, you might be right:
(a) A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay,
guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer's law firm* will pay
the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client.
But if you continue:
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may:
(2) after the lawyer is retained by the client, agree to lend money to
the client based on the client's written* promise to repay the loan,
provided the lawyer complies with rules 1.7(b), 1.7(c), and 1.8.1 before
making the loanor agreeing to do so;
Hence the importance of the promissory note of which Morris testified.
More importantly the testimony that the loans were "forgivable" which
makes them not a loan.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:40:47 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 1/31/24 6:42 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 4:19:12 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:I missed that in the testimony. Could you point out where Morris (not
On 1/29/24 6:02 PM, ScottW wrote:
You're misreading the rule:Show us the notes. He claims he "loaned money" Hunter never asked for. >>>>>>> How does that work?Morris was Hunter's attorney.
And the Ca. Bar prohibits an attorney from lending their clients money. >>>>> Apparently, they don't want "attorney-client" privilege to extend to coverup
of laundering money.
https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rule_1.8.5-Exec_Summary-Redline.pdf
If you stopped here, you might be right:
(a) A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay,
guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer's law firm* will pay >>>> the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client. >>>>
But if you continue:
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may:
(2) after the lawyer is retained by the client, agree to lend money to >>>> the client based on the client's written* promise to repay the loan,
provided the lawyer complies with rules 1.7(b), 1.7(c), and 1.8.1 before >>>> making the loanor agreeing to do so;
Hence the importance of the promissory note of which Morris testified.
More importantly the testimony that the loans were "forgivable" which
makes them not a loan.
Comer) calls them "forgivable"?
https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-statement-on-transcribed-interview-with-kevin-morris%EF%BF%BC/#:~:text=Kevin%20Morris%27s%20financial%20support%20to,election%2C%20and%20could%20be%20forgiven.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:43:50 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,352,575 |