Comments by "MrEkzotic" (@MrEkzotic) on "Hunter Biden special counsel expected to seek indictment" video.

  1. ​ @charlesljones2454 LOL. Wow. You love those straws.
    2
  2. Because they invested in Jared's company. I don't like it either, but it is far more legitimate than directly paying Joe and Hunter for selling out America.
    1
  3.  @davids.2703  It's really just deflection.
    1
  4. We really don't about Hunter Biden, it's his father's complicity that needs to be addressed.
    1
  5. Unfortunately, they can't indict a sitting president, and McCarthy is too chickens*** to impeach him.
    1
  6. ​ @Spilatro702 Absolutely. Overwhelming evidence. You should try to keep up.
    1
  7.  @davids.2703  LOL. To court? As if the DOJ will do anything to the insiders. You're clueless.
    1
  8.  @gerretoutdoors3710   Bank records, SARS reports, testimony, whistleblowers, text messages, flight records, and emails all add up to money laundering and bribery. Answer this one question: What legitimate products and services did Joe Biden's 20 fake companies sell to oligarchs and politicians in Ukraine, China, Romania, and Russia in order to receive millions of dollars wired through multiple domestic and foreign bank accounts? I'll wait.
    1
  9.  @gerretoutdoors3710  Well, I just provided it. Can you refute it? Nope, you can't.
    1
  10.  @gerretoutdoors3710  While that is true, the standard of proof is "reasonable doubt," not "all doubt." Of course, we aren't going to find a check made out to Joe Biden signed by a Ukrainian oligarch which says "Bribe payment." Most cases are built and won on an abundance of circumstantial evidence. Why is nobody curious as to what legitimate products and services his companies allegedly sell? If the identical evidence was against Trump, the media coverage would be as prolific as that of Russia collusion, but it's crickets because Joe Biden is being protected by the permanent bureaucracy and the complicit media.
    1