I'm no stock expert, but DJT goin' down, eh?

I notice that none of the people defending the company have actually up with any actual path to success for the company.

 

The company isn't supposed to succeed. It's supposed to funnel all of its assets to Trump, and then declare bankruptcy.

Anyone investing in it deserved to be fleeced.

 

All those would make me suspicious, especially since Joe Biden has lied about knowing anything about his son's business. I would think that after a couple of dozen meetings and telecons with his bosses, he would have some knowledge of his son's business. But since Biden lies a lot, I guess that does not make you suspicious.

 

You didn't say anything though other than conspiracy theories. LOL

 

Strange opinion. I reject it.

 

What they acknowledge and what they think aren't always the same. That is almost universal in politics.

 

It is valuable enough to form an opinion.

 

Because some investor(s), say a Saudi Ruler, is using this as a means to prop up T****? That would be my bet.
They can't give him money straight up but they can buy his stock. The big question is if there's a or a few guilty convictions against st him how fast can they bail?

 

No, I don't say that. But, nice attempt to put words into my mouth.

Since it's not evidence strong enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, your opinion is of little consequence.

You know the old saying about opinions.

Special Counsels do not speak to the media. The only message they communicate to media is via charging documents. Since Weiss didn't indict Hunter until rather recently, the absence of those documents cannot be interpreted as 'inactivity'. Your opinion, therefore, not considering this fact, is of no consequence.

The tired 'everyone knows' argument, or it's variants, falls under a broad category called posturing. Posturing is an attempt to elevate one's posture in an argument which gives one the illusion it improves one's argument, which it, in fact, never does. It's a pseudo debate trick. I recommend avoiding doing this in the future. I can always spot a weak debater when they pull this one, and even Trump does it, a lot of people do it, so you have good company. But, Trump's base are easy to fool.

A second example of 'posturing'. What to shoot for three?

Yeah, right:

Hunter's investigation is political.
Trump's is not.

That's true for the House investigation, as Comer has publicly admitted it, but the SC investigation's assignment letter does not mention Joe Biden.

In order to be a 'fall guy', one takes the rap for someone else.
There is no 'someone else' meaning Joe Biden, who isn't guilty of Taxes charges or gun charges.

On Hunter, I agree. On Trump, there is no evidence of political motivation and the reason is that there is a ton of compelling criminal evidence against Trump where there is no conclusive evidence against Joe Biden.

 

Well, the only part i disagree with on your comment is the use of the word 'clandestine' as that word implies intentional cloaking one's activities to avoid nefarious activity. I don't see any attempt by Hunter that he believed he was doing anything illegal, nor do see any attempt by him to hide his activities in Ukraine. That being the case, partisans will try and make hay out of it, so that much I do agree.

Précisément !

 

Expect a counter argument, a cross examination of your 'opinion', if your opinion is based on inconclusive, scant, or misinterpreted evidence.

But, that is the reason we are here, eh? To debate.

 

I agree with that. I am not here so much for debate, however. I am here do. I just say what I think like you do.

 

I have no idea nor do I care. Truth Social can do what it likes. The Saudis can do what they like. My point was just one could expect a decline in the stock price for a company that has produced not a nickel of profit. It has nothing to do with politics.

 

We are so far apart there is no point in continuing. You are welcome to your opinions.

 

No horror. Just questions like "why?"

 

very interesting.... let's delve into this subject
where exactly does "proof and evidence" come from?? Who is responsible for finding "proof and evidence" as we set around waiting for it to suddenly show up? Who develops proof suitable for use in a court of law? Is a picture taken by an average citizen or even a journalist proof that can be taken before a court of law, or does something else have to happen with that picture first?

 

Thanks for the questions but I don't have time to respond with information you should already have. Take care.

 

The CIA operation in Ukraine is only 'cloaked' in so far as its exposure has been ignored for a decade. The RP cannot hurt The Bidens by focusing attention on a connection to one of the few documented successes of "clandestine" US intelligence.

"In April 2014, as the separatists advanced, Kolomoisky mobilized his workforce into a 20,000-man private army in two battalions, Dnipro-1 and Dnipro-2, and stemmed the tide. According to Wilson Center director Rojansky, Kolomosiky is “perceived as the bulwark and the reason why the whole Novorossiya project [Putin’s plan to absorb most of eastern Ukraine] broke down at the border of the Donbass.”

Stopping Putin in his tracks would clearly have earned the master raider merit in the eyes of policymakers in Washington and other Western capitals, which may just explain how it was that while Firtash was under the shadow of the U.S. indictment, no one made too much of a fuss at the disappearance of an estimated $2 billion in IMF aid for Ukraine that speedily exited the country via Kolomoisky’s PrivatBank."
HARPERS, HEART OF EMPIRE, Undelivered Goods, How $1.8 billion in aid to Ukraine was funneled to the outposts of the international finance galaxy, By Andrew Cockburn, August 13, 2015.
https://harpers.org/blog/2015/08/undelivered-goods/

 

What "why"? Unless we are just going to pretend that all business transactions are automatically corrupt, what the hell else do we have to go on?

 

I am not surprised you can't back up any claim you make.
That shows you are repeating BS or just making it up.

I am not aware of those things you list. And neither are you, at least with any certainty.

Because you can't show your work with facts and links to the proof.

Who doesn't have more than 1 email address? AFAIK, the law doesn't limit email accounts.

The point is made, you have no proof. Therefore, there's no need to continue your fantasy stories.

 

Why did they have 20 some odd corporations with no business model or visible source of revenue? That's the question. The logical reason to have them is to hide something. What would that be? It doesn't prove anything. It raises questions. You don't want an answer. That's your choice.

 

I'm going to ask again for a reference. You will again fail. Where is your evidence that these were "20 . . . corporations with no business model or visible source of revenue"?

 

This has all been discussed repeatedly. You can google it just as easily as me. If you fail to find it, let me know and I will teach you the fundamentals of googling.

 

Feel free to substantiate your 'opinion'. I will be happy to substantiate mine.

If the evidence against Trump were as weak as the evidence you guys have against Hunter, you could claim 'political', but since the evidence is strong, you can't.

Backing this up is based on the following inescapable facts:

After six years, Weiss did not find nor indict hunter for money laundering, corruption, nor influence peddling, as the right media has been all edging. Prosecutors do not prosecute if the evidence isn't strong enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The tax charges and gun charge are consolation charges forwhich Weiss culd have indicted for in 2020, but he was still fishing for bigger crimes (money laundering, influence peddling, etc)

That is not the case with Trump. This idea that Bragg, Willis, & Smith would accuse a former US president, which represents a historical first, a MONUMENTAL historic first, bringing the ultra high stakes of world attention upon him, stakes so high, which, if they lose, could ruin their careers, could bring the wrath of Trump supporters upon their persons (which is happening,, anyway), this idea that they would go through all of that, without a ton of evidence sufficient of convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, this idea that they would go through all of that on scant evidence (of the type you guys have against Hunter) defies credulity.

Now, the above is a solid path of reasoning. If you can offer a more compelling counter argument, with stronger evidence, feel free to do so. If all you can do is say 'i disagree', then my argument stands.

 

Bragg has taken "crimes" which are beyond the statute of limitations and paired them with federal election fraud which he has no authority to prosecute. All of this after campaigning that he was going to "get Trump". The democrats use this after all the claims about all the laws Trump broke.