Hunter Biden, Dad, and Republican implosion

[Joel]

So, Hunter's plea deal was rejected, and given the grounds on which it
was, he withdrew his guilty plea. Certainly interesting, if you care
about the president's troubled son. But now they've moved to impeach
Pres. Biden, or at least try, based on a father and son call, as if we
can divine that old Joe really understood his son's intentions, with
this call. It's the most preposterous thing imaginable, former Pres.
Clinton *beat* an impeachment where he *was* guilty of one thing,
perjury, but the circumstances didn't really warrant impeachment.

We're in the twilight zone, here. McCarthy definitely doesn't want to
be doing this BS, but he has little choice. The games are going to
get brutal.

--
Joel Crump

[Skeeter]

In article <u0d6gi1cfnlk39e0q...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

Sounds like the same thing the left did to Trump. What's your point?

[Joel]

Trump was guilty in both impeachments. If they find something to get
Biden on, let us know, this shit right now is a joke.

--
Joel Crump

[Skeeter]

In article <4je6gile48f1344qs...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

We have plenty. The impeachments failed. You know that.

[mixed nuts]

They didn't fail, and they made Trump very very angry because the
democrats disrespected His Almighty Power and did not Honer Him with
valuable gifts and Great Praise for His amazing achomlishments and
tremendous winnings.

--
Grizzly H.

[Skeeter]

In article <udvgia$2mtbu$1...@dont-email.me>,
melops...@undulatus.budgie says...

They failed and you know it.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

>Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
>
>>> So, Hunter's plea deal was rejected, and given the grounds on which it
>>> was, he withdrew his guilty plea. Certainly interesting, if you care
>>> about the president's troubled son. But now they've moved to impeach
>>> Pres. Biden, or at least try, based on a father and son call, as if we
>>> can divine that old Joe really understood his son's intentions, with
>>> this call. It's the most preposterous thing imaginable, former Pres.
>>> Clinton *beat* an impeachment where he *was* guilty of one thing,
>>> perjury, but the circumstances didn't really warrant impeachment.
>>>
>>> We're in the twilight zone, here. McCarthy definitely doesn't want to
>>> be doing this BS, but he has little choice. The games are going to
>>> get brutal.
>>
>>Sounds like the same thing the left did to Trump. What's your point?
>
>
>Trump was guilty in both impeachments.

Um, no, he wasn't, you stupid fuck.

Joel CONTINUES his delusions.

[Joel]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>Trump was guilty in both impeachments.
>
>Um, no, he wasn't, you stupid fuck.
>
>Joel CONTINUES his delusions.

I didn't say he got 67 senators to convict, I said he was guilty.
There's a difference, or do you think O.J. was "not guilty" merely
because the fucking *VERDICT* was that?

Duh.

--
Joel Crump

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

O.J. wasn't guilty. Neither was Trump.

The fact that you WANT them to be guilty means nothing.

[Joel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/09/14/hunter-biden-indictment-gun-charges/

President Biden’s son Hunter was indicted Thursday for allegedly
making false statements and illegal gun possession — setting the stage
for a possible criminal trial for the younger Biden in 2024 while his
father campaigns for reelection.

The charges follow the collapse in July of a plea deal that lawyers
for Hunter Biden had negotiated with U.S. Attorney and special counsel
David Weiss, in which Biden would have pleaded guilty to two
misdemeanor tax violations while admitting to illegal possession of a
gun but not actually pleading guilty to that felony offense.

The four-page indictment accuses Biden of making two false statements
in filling out the paperwork to purchase a gun on Oct. 12, 2018. He
claimed to not be addicted to or using illegal drugs, the indictment
says, “when in fact, as he knew, that statement was false and
fictitious.”

Count three of the indictment charges Biden with unlawfully possessing
that gun, a Colt pistol, for 11 days following that purchase. That
charge is based on a federal law making it illegal to possess a weapon
while a person is using illegal drugs.

A representative for Biden’s legal team did not immediately respond to
a request for comment. Previously, his lawyers and defenders have
argued that prosecutors very rarely indict people on such gun
violations unless the charge can be tied to more serious crimes. To do
so in Biden’s case, his lawyers have said, would be an unfair
application of federal charging practices.

Weiss, who launched the investigation into Hunter Biden as the
Delaware U.S. attorney during the Trump administration, signaled
earlier this month, after the plea deal fell through, that he planned
to seek an indictment.

Hunter Biden’s lawyers argued then that their client should not be
charged because — in their view — the portion of the failed deal that
related to the weapons charge remains in effect.

That part of the deal required Biden to enter a pretrial diversion
program, an option typically applied to nonviolent offenders with
substance abuse problems. In all, he would have spent about two years
on probation but avoided jail time if he kept to the terms of the
deal, which included not owning a gun or engaging in criminal conduct.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting, so they're taking Hunter's ass to trial, I guess all the
BS about his "sweetheart deal" meant nothing, when the system works as
it should, and it's not just rubber stamped. This is *predictable and
normal* in a case like this. I bet my reputation that it ends with
Hunter paying a meaningful price, but no evidence to connect Dad to
anything nefarious.

--
Joel Crump

[Just Wondering]

On 9/14/2023 10:33 AM, Joel wrote:
> So, Hunter's plea deal was rejected, and given the grounds on which it
> was, he withdrew his guilty plea. Certainly interesting, if you care
> about the president's troubled son. But now they've moved to impeach
> Pres. Biden, or at least try, based on a father and son call, as if we
> can divine that old Joe really understood his son's intentions, with
> this call.

How about a little actual truth to replace your last sentence?

[Just Wondering]

That's what a "not guilty" verdict means. "Not guilty" does not
necessarily mean "he didn't do it", it just means "not proven
beyond a reasonable doubt."

[Joel]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
wrote:

>O.J. wasn't guilty.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

--
Joel Crump

[Joel]

It is the truth, we have nothing to demonstrate that there's some
dealings involving Joe Biden. Not a God damn thing.

--
Joel Crump

[Joel]

Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

>> do you think O.J. was "not guilty" merely
>> because the fucking *VERDICT* was that?
>>
>> Duh.
>>
>That's what a "not guilty" verdict means. "Not guilty" does not
>necessarily mean "he didn't do it", it just means "not proven
>beyond a reasonable doubt."

I know that, and O.J. got this verdict, correctly I might add, while
being proven guilty in the same trial. It's an interesting case, even
if you don't care about celebrity stuff, the fact of his fame was only
relevant in that it brought attention to the trial, which turned out
to have a strong, clear "reasonable doubt" allegation against a key
detective on the case.

--
Joel Crump

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

>I know that, and O.J. got this verdict, correctly I might add, while
>being proven guilty in the same trial.

No, he didn't.

[Just Wondering]

So you just regurgitate MSM BS. Got it.

[chrisv]

Joel wrote:

>I know that, and O.J. got this verdict, correctly I might add, while
>being proven guilty in the same trial. It's an interesting case, even
>if you don't care about celebrity stuff, the fact of his fame was only
>relevant in that it brought attention to the trial, which turned out
>to have a strong, clear "reasonable doubt" allegation against a key
>detective on the case.

OMG

But there is no reasonable doubt about Rittenhouse.

This guy is nothing but a troll, people!

[chrisv]

Just Wondering wrote:

>> It is the truth, we have nothing to demonstrate that there's some
>> dealings involving Joe Biden. Not a God damn thing.
>>
>So you just regurgitate MSM BS. Got it.

No, he's even more ridiculous than that.

[%]

you look like him when you cry

[%]

is he as bad as you

[Skeeter]

In article <emh6gi99nn2a0pp781s4cfrh828rchaok6
@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com>,
klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com says...

There was no Russian collusion or quid pro quo either.

[Skeeter]

In article <djl6gihh85gni68b6...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

You don't believe in rule of law?

[Skeeter]

In article <9an6gipe67i5covsf...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

>
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >O.J. wasn't guilty.
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Prove it then. The jury said he wasn't. What do you know that they
don't?

[Skeeter]

In article <8hn6gipfsv27psmri...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

Jury found him not guilty. What if the jury finds Trump not guilty? You
will go apeshit.

[Skeeter]

In article <d7m6gitqdr83re1es...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/09/14/hunter-biden-indictment-gun-charges/
>
> President Biden?s son Hunter was indicted Thursday for allegedly
> making false statements and illegal gun possession ? setting the stage

> for a possible criminal trial for the younger Biden in 2024 while his
> father campaigns for reelection.
>
> The charges follow the collapse in July of a plea deal that lawyers
> for Hunter Biden had negotiated with U.S. Attorney and special counsel
> David Weiss, in which Biden would have pleaded guilty to two
> misdemeanor tax violations while admitting to illegal possession of a
> gun but not actually pleading guilty to that felony offense.
>
> The four-page indictment accuses Biden of making two false statements
> in filling out the paperwork to purchase a gun on Oct. 12, 2018. He
> claimed to not be addicted to or using illegal drugs, the indictment

> says, ?when in fact, as he knew, that statement was false and
> fictitious.?

>
> Count three of the indictment charges Biden with unlawfully possessing
> that gun, a Colt pistol, for 11 days following that purchase. That
> charge is based on a federal law making it illegal to possess a weapon
> while a person is using illegal drugs.
>

> A representative for Biden?s legal team did not immediately respond to

> a request for comment. Previously, his lawyers and defenders have
> argued that prosecutors very rarely indict people on such gun
> violations unless the charge can be tied to more serious crimes. To do

> so in Biden?s case, his lawyers have said, would be an unfair

> application of federal charging practices.
>
> Weiss, who launched the investigation into Hunter Biden as the
> Delaware U.S. attorney during the Trump administration, signaled
> earlier this month, after the plea deal fell through, that he planned
> to seek an indictment.
>

> Hunter Biden?s lawyers argued then that their client should not be
> charged because ? in their view ? the portion of the failed deal that

> related to the weapons charge remains in effect.
>
> That part of the deal required Biden to enter a pretrial diversion
> program, an option typically applied to nonviolent offenders with
> substance abuse problems. In all, he would have spent about two years
> on probation but avoided jail time if he kept to the terms of the
> deal, which included not owning a gun or engaging in criminal conduct.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Interesting, so they're taking Hunter's ass to trial, I guess all the
> BS about his "sweetheart deal" meant nothing, when the system works as
> it should, and it's not just rubber stamped. This is *predictable and
> normal* in a case like this. I bet my reputation that it ends with
> Hunter paying a meaningful price, but no evidence to connect Dad to
> anything nefarious.

Of course. You can hope that. Hunter is guilty and the impeachment
inquiry will expose more.

[Skeeter]

In article <oen6gi9u1bm4v15af...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

How do you know? Some evidence is withheld during an investigation to
keep the guilty from tampering with it. Learn how this works.

[Joel]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>O.J. got this verdict [not guilty], correctly I might add, while

>>being proven guilty in the same trial.
>
>No, he didn't.

That's where you're a fucking retard, the evidence against O.J. was
overwhelming, but the jury wanted, correctly, to tell the LAPD to get
their act together, it's better to let O.J. walk, than to tolerate
that racist "police work".

--
Joel Crump

[%]

did too

[Joel]

Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

>> It is the truth, we have nothing to demonstrate that there's some
>> dealings involving Joe Biden. Not a God damn thing.
>>
>So you just regurgitate MSM BS. Got it.

Incorrect, I read the House Republicans' bullshit on their .gov site:

https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-in-his-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/


I challenge you, quote something from that dribble that implicates
Pres. Biden. I'll wait.

--
Joel Crump

[Joel]

There's no doubt about either case in terms of what happened, they're
both killers, but indeed Rittenhouse should have been convicted, and
O.J. was correctly not.

--
Joel Crump

[Joel]

Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:

>> I know that, and O.J. got this verdict, correctly I might add, while
>> being proven guilty in the same trial. It's an interesting case, even
>> if you don't care about celebrity stuff, the fact of his fame was only
>> relevant in that it brought attention to the trial, which turned out
>> to have a strong, clear "reasonable doubt" allegation against a key
>> detective on the case.
>
>Jury found him not guilty. What if the jury finds Trump not guilty? You
>will go apeshit.

They're not similar cases. Ultimately, what happens to Trump has
nothing to do with me. I wouldn't put it past him to get all hung
juries, but then I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a conviction,
either.

--
Joel Crump

[Joel]

Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:

>> Interesting, so they're taking Hunter's ass to trial, I guess all the
>> BS about his "sweetheart deal" meant nothing, when the system works as
>> it should, and it's not just rubber stamped. This is *predictable and
>> normal* in a case like this. I bet my reputation that it ends with
>> Hunter paying a meaningful price, but no evidence to connect Dad to
>> anything nefarious.
>
>Of course. You can hope that. Hunter is guilty and the impeachment
>inquiry will expose more.

Expose more of what, though, more Hunter crap? Is that what people
elected the congress to do, investigate the president's kids? And
pretend there's a magic connection to said president?

Pretty ridiculous, to think that's what is happening, and yet as far
as any normal person can tell, that's what it is.

--
Joel Crump

[%]

i would be surprised if he doesn't ,
live long enough to see the end to this

[Joel]

Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:

>> It is the truth, we have nothing to demonstrate that there's some
>> dealings involving Joe Biden. Not a God damn thing.
>
>How do you know? Some evidence is withheld during an investigation to
>keep the guilty from tampering with it. Learn how this works.

Oh sure, I believe there's so much more to this BS. You're being led
along like a sheep.

--
Joel Crump

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

The jury found him innocent, and there was ZERO "overwhelming
evidence," you ignorant faggot.

Then you insanely blather he was "proven guilty in the same trial."
You've obviously high on something.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

Rittenhouse should NOT have been convicted, as he was innocent, and
was a hero for defending himself and killing a couple of child
molesters to boot.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

>Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
>
>>> I know that, and O.J. got this verdict, correctly I might add, while
>>> being proven guilty in the same trial. It's an interesting case, even
>>> if you don't care about celebrity stuff, the fact of his fame was only
>>> relevant in that it brought attention to the trial, which turned out
>>> to have a strong, clear "reasonable doubt" allegation against a key
>>> detective on the case.
>>
>>Jury found him not guilty. What if the jury finds Trump not guilty? You
>>will go apeshit.
>
>
>They're not similar cases.

Neither are Biden and OJ but you desperately dragged Orenthal into the
discussion.

[Joel]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>>>O.J. got this verdict [not guilty], correctly I might add, while
>>>>being proven guilty in the same trial.
>>>
>>>No, he didn't.
>>
>>That's where you're a fucking retard, the evidence against O.J. was
>>overwhelming, but the jury wanted, correctly, to tell the LAPD to get
>>their act together, it's better to let O.J. walk, than to tolerate
>>that racist "police work".
>
>The jury found him innocent, and there was ZERO "overwhelming
>evidence," you ignorant faggot.

The jury acquitted him, that hardly means they thought he was
innocent, you complete dumbshit. They did the right thing, but in an
unusual case.

>Then you insanely blather he was "proven guilty in the same trial."
>You've obviously high on something.

You don't think finding both victims' blood, in his car, was evidence,
Einstein? Or his previous violence and threats on his ex-wife? Or
the fact that there was nothing to remotely implicate anyone else?

--
Joel Crump

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>O.J. got this verdict [not guilty], correctly I might add, while
>>>>>being proven guilty in the same trial.
>>>>
>>>>No, he didn't.
>>>
>>>That's where you're a fucking retard, the evidence against O.J. was
>>>overwhelming, but the jury wanted, correctly, to tell the LAPD to get
>>>their act together, it's better to let O.J. walk, than to tolerate
>>>that racist "police work".
>>
>>The jury found him innocent, and there was ZERO "overwhelming
>>evidence," you ignorant faggot.
>
>
>The jury acquitted him, that hardly means they thought he was
>innocent, you complete dumbshit.

Yeah. It does.

Holy FUCK but you're stupid.

How did you get this dumb?

EXPLAIN---->

[Joel]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>>>That's where you're a fucking retard, the evidence against O.J. was
>>>>overwhelming, but the jury wanted, correctly, to tell the LAPD to get
>>>>their act together, it's better to let O.J. walk, than to tolerate
>>>>that racist "police work".
>>>
>>>The jury found him innocent, and there was ZERO "overwhelming
>>>evidence," you ignorant faggot.
>>
>>The jury acquitted him, that hardly means they thought he was
>>innocent, you complete dumbshit.
>
>Yeah. It does.
>
>Holy FUCK but you're stupid.
>
>How did you get this dumb?
>
>EXPLAIN---->

<yawn>

--
Joel Crump

[%]

when you yawn like that i bet i could fit this in there

[Joel]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
wrote:

>EXPLAIN---->


Message-ID: <ns57giluf26htc18h...@4ax.com>

You don't think finding both victims' blood, in his car, was evidence,
Einstein? Or his previous violence and threats on his ex-wife? Or
the fact that there was nothing to remotely implicate anyone else?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Already answered and as usual snipped by your cowardly Caucasian
boomer dumb ass. Go fuck yourself.

--
Joel Crump

[Skeeter]

In article <au27gi9jtjvg9rm7r...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

Just like Kyle Rittonhouse?

[Skeeter]

In article <ok37gi92dj3ltgpef...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

So you don't believe in a fair justice system?

[Skeeter]

In article <iq37gidkjb6427tts...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

Rittonhouse was self defense.

[Skeeter]

In article <KFednQIaA_nlDZ74...@giganews.com>, pursent100
@gmail.com says...

racist

[Skeeter]

In article <cv37giltrn7vo2j94...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

There are bank records and other written statements and recording that
have not been released. But the inquiry will allow that.

[Joel]

Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:

>> the evidence against O.J. [Simpson] was

>> overwhelming, but the jury wanted, correctly, to tell the LAPD to get
>> their act together, it's better to let O.J. walk, than to tolerate
>> that racist "police work".
>
>Just like Kyle Rittonhouse?

I saw nothing that would constitute reasonable doubt, about that
trial. He came there armed to the teeth, he had the intent to bait
protesters into a confrontation, and when he got it, he shot, he
killed, he murdered. He pretended to cry, in court. Tell me where I
should give him the slightest benefit of the doubt?

--
Joel Crump

[Skeeter]

In article <q247gitel87kdjq5q...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

It's true. You don't know how an investigation works.

[Skeeter]

In article <ns57giluf26htc18h...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

So he was proven innocent in a court of law.

[Skeeter]

In article <1a77gi9m26kndnbge...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

and off he runs.

[%]

you bet and a hard core one too ,
my dna hates it's neighbor

[Skeeter]

In article <ds97gid15ulsgu9k8...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

He was found innocent in a court of law and a jury of his peers. Your
racism noted.

[Joel]

Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:

>> >> It is the truth, we have nothing to demonstrate that there's some
>> >> dealings involving Joe Biden. Not a God damn thing.
>> >
>> >How do you know? Some evidence is withheld during an investigation to
>> >keep the guilty from tampering with it. Learn how this works.
>>
>> Oh sure, I believe there's so much more to this BS. You're being led
>> along like a sheep.
>
>It's true. You don't know how an investigation works.

It's not a real investigation, dipshit, it's a bunch of political
maneuvering. I can't believe you would take it seriously, given what
nonexistent "evidence" they've already claimed to have made public.
There's no smoke, there's no fire.

--
Joel Crump

[Skeeter]

In article <DlqdnSLHUeXxMZ74...@giganews.com>, pursent100
@gmail.com says...

i hear ya brother but i believe in equality, so i hate everyone..equally

[Skeeter]

In article <ppa7gi99kvcmp98e8...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

>
> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
>
> >> the evidence against O.J. [Simpson] was
> >> overwhelming, but the jury wanted, correctly, to tell the LAPD to get
> >> their act together, it's better to let O.J. walk, than to tolerate
> >> that racist "police work".
> >
> >Just like Kyle Rittonhouse?
>
>
> I saw nothing that would constitute reasonable doubt, about that
> trial. He came there armed to the teeth,

He has a gun.

BTW the guy yelling "I'm going to kill you" and chasing him and was in
possession of a weapon illegally wasn't?

> he had the intent to bait
> protesters into a confrontation,

How do you know his intent? Do you know him? Did he tell you that?

> and when he got it, he shot, he
> killed, he murdered. He pretended to cry, in court. Tell me where I
> should give him the slightest benefit of the doubt?

They were chasing him. He got rid of a child molester and a violent
felon. All legally.

[Skeeter]

In article <40c7gipf29u2dl5m8...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

Like I said. You have no idea. You are starting to sound like Rudy. Are
you upset?

[Joel]

Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:

>> >> Oh sure, I believe there's so much more to this BS. You're being led
>> >> along like a sheep.
>> >
>> >It's true. You don't know how an investigation works.
>>
>> It's not a real investigation, dipshit, it's a bunch of political
>> maneuvering. I can't believe you would take it seriously, given what
>> nonexistent "evidence" they've already claimed to have made public.
>> There's no smoke, there's no fire.
>
>Like I said. You have no idea. You are starting to sound like Rudy. Are
>you upset?

I have every idea, I've paid attention to their nonsense, including
their utterly pathetic document on the house.gov Web site. It's sad
that they would even do this, but they're being blackmailed by the
MAGA Squad of MTG et al.

--
Joel Crump

[%]

want me to tell you the first time i said that in usenet

[Skeeter]

In article <63d7gihnkph6i6414...@4ax.com>,
joel...@gmail.com says...

You know a lot of people said that same thing when they "tried" to
impeach Trump. But you cheered it on. They are not going to put info
during an ongoing investigator on a web site.

[Skeeter]

In article <m0ydnbB0ObGFJJ74...@giganews.com>, pursent100

will it take long should i get a drink

[Just Wondering]

"Not guilty" does not mean "innocent".
Juries find criminal defendants "guilty" or "not guilty".
Juries never find a defendant "innocent".
"Not guilty" means the prosecution failed to prove guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

TRANSLATION: Joel just woke up one day, as dumb as a rock.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>EXPLAIN---->
>
>
>Message-ID: <ns57giluf26htc18h...@4ax.com>
>
>You don't think finding both victims' blood, in his car, was evidence,
>Einstein?

OJ was innocent. Accept it, and move on.

[chrisv]

Skeeter wrote:

>So he was proven innocent in a court of law.

A lot of idiocy being posted. He was not "proven" or "found"
innocent.

He was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u0d6gi1cfnlk39e0q...@4ax.com...
> So, Hunter's plea deal was rejected, and given the grounds on which it
> was, he withdrew his guilty plea. Certainly interesting, if you care
> about the president's troubled son. But now they've moved to impeach
> Pres. Biden, or at least try, based on a father and son call, as if we
> can divine that old Joe really understood his son's intentions, with
> this call.

No problem, all we have to do is cut Hunter a deal and he will sell the "Big
Guy" down the river to save his own ass.

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4je6gile48f1344qs...@4ax.com...

> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
>
>>> So, Hunter's plea deal was rejected, and given the grounds on which it
>>> was, he withdrew his guilty plea. Certainly interesting, if you care
>>> about the president's troubled son. But now they've moved to impeach
>>> Pres. Biden, or at least try, based on a father and son call, as if we
>>> can divine that old Joe really understood his son's intentions, with

>>> this call. It's the most preposterous thing imaginable, former Pres.
>>> Clinton *beat* an impeachment where he *was* guilty of one thing,
>>> perjury, but the circumstances didn't really warrant impeachment.
>>>
>>> We're in the twilight zone, here. McCarthy definitely doesn't want to
>>> be doing this BS, but he has little choice. The games are going to
>>> get brutal.
>>
>>Sounds like the same thing the left did to Trump. What's your point?
>
>
> Trump was guilty in both impeachments.

And yet he was found not guilty.

? If they find something to get
> Biden on, let us know, this shit right now is a joke.

You mean like how you were telling us for months that they had something on
Trump?

Twice

[Joel]

The evidence in one's *mind* *was* beyond a reasonable doubt, but that
doesn't matter if a detective, as far as anyone can tell, plants
evidence, and goes on to be blindsided about his known racism, on the
witness stand. That is technical reasonable doubt. The jury did the
correct and just thing.

--
Joel Crump

[mixed nuts]

On 9/14/2023 17:44, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <emh6gi99nn2a0pp781s4cfrh828rchaok6
> @Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com>,
> klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com says...
>>
>> [Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

>>
>>> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So, Hunter's plea deal was rejected, and given the grounds on which it
>>>>> was, he withdrew his guilty plea. Certainly interesting, if you care
>>>>> about the president's troubled son. But now they've moved to impeach
>>>>> Pres. Biden, or at least try, based on a father and son call, as if we
>>>>> can divine that old Joe really understood his son's intentions, with
>>>>> this call. It's the most preposterous thing imaginable, former Pres.
>>>>> Clinton *beat* an impeachment where he *was* guilty of one thing,
>>>>> perjury, but the circumstances didn't really warrant impeachment.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're in the twilight zone, here. McCarthy definitely doesn't want to
>>>>> be doing this BS, but he has little choice. The games are going to
>>>>> get brutal.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like the same thing the left did to Trump. What's your point?
>>>
>>>
>>> Trump was guilty in both impeachments.
>>

>> Um, no, he wasn't, you stupid fuck.
>>
>> Joel CONTINUES his delusions.
>
> There was no Russian collusion or quid pro quo either.

That's not what Rudy and his friends and close allies, the Russians,
said. Also, it's in the Mueller report - you should read it.

--
Grizzly H.

[Skeeter]

In article <ue1qia$38juo$1...@dont-email.me>,
melops...@undulatus.budgie says...

No matter. No convictions.

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:djl6gihh85gni68b6...@4ax.com...
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>>>Trump was guilty in both impeachments.
>>
>>Um, no, he wasn't, you stupid fuck.
>>
>>Joel CONTINUES his delusions.
>
>

> I didn't say he got 67 senators to convict, I said he was guilty.

Oh, well shit, I didn't realize our legal system decided guilt by your
opinion.

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:cv37giltrn7vo2j94...@4ax.com...

> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
>
>>> Interesting, so they're taking Hunter's ass to trial, I guess all the
>>> BS about his "sweetheart deal" meant nothing, when the system works as
>>> it should, and it's not just rubber stamped. This is *predictable and
>>> normal* in a case like this. I bet my reputation that it ends with
>>> Hunter paying a meaningful price, but no evidence to connect Dad to
>>> anything nefarious.
>>
>>Of course. You can hope that. Hunter is guilty and the impeachment
>>inquiry will expose more.
>
>
> Expose more of what, though, more Hunter crap?

It does when it involved he father was serving and when his father used his
governmental authority in illegal manners...

I mean what you call it when a government official uses their position to
perform a quid pro quo with Ukrainian officials?

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oen6gi9u1bm4v15af...@4ax.com...

> Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>
>>> So, Hunter's plea deal was rejected, and given the grounds on which it
>>> was, he withdrew his guilty plea. Certainly interesting, if you care
>>> about the president's troubled son. But now they've moved to impeach
>>> Pres. Biden, or at least try, based on a father and son call, as if we
>>> can divine that old Joe really understood his son's intentions, with
>>> this call.
>>

>>How about a little actual truth to replace your last sentence?

>
>
> It is the truth, we have nothing to demonstrate that there's some
> dealings involving Joe Biden. Not a God damn thing.

You mean other than the records and Biden's own taped confession?

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:3c37gidkhjrh9qlvn...@4ax.com...

> Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>
>>> It is the truth, we have nothing to demonstrate that there's some
>>> dealings involving Joe Biden. Not a God damn thing.
>>>

>>So you just regurgitate MSM BS. Got it.
>
>
> Incorrect, I read the House Republicans' bullshit on their .gov site:
>
> https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-in-his-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/
>
>
> I challenge you, quote something from that dribble that implicates
> Pres. Biden. I'll wait.

https://www.facebook.com/RepJeffDuncan/videos/quid-pro-joe/479059886319451/

Quid Pro Quo Joe making a public confession.

Is that good enough?

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8hn6gipfsv27psmri...@4ax.com...
> Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>
>>> do you think O.J. was "not guilty" merely
>>> because the fucking *VERDICT* was that?
>>>
>>> Duh.
>>>
>>That's what a "not guilty" verdict means. "Not guilty" does not
>>necessarily mean "he didn't do it", it just means "not proven
>>beyond a reasonable doubt."

>
>
> I know that, and O.J. got this verdict, correctly I might add, while
> being proven guilty in the same trial. It's an interesting case, even
> if you don't care about celebrity stuff, the fact of his fame was only
> relevant in that it brought attention to the trial, which turned out
> to have a strong, clear "reasonable doubt" allegation against a key
> detective on the case.

Must be why the ruling was "Not Guilty" then....

And given it was proven the detective tampered with evidence, that's usually
enough to raise reasonable doubt in anyone's mind.

Did OJ commit the crime? Probably. But probably isn't enough to convict.
Because with evidence tampering.. ALL of the evidence becomes suspect.
Reasonable doubt results.

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:au27gi9jtjvg9rm7r...@4ax.com...
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>O.J. got this verdict [not guilty], correctly I might add, while

>>>being proven guilty in the same trial.
>>

>>No, he didn't.

>
>
> That's where you're a fucking retard, the evidence against O.J. was
> overwhelming,

It was.. until it was uncovered to have been tampered with. Then the
evidence become underwhelming.

> but the jury wanted, correctly, to tell the LAPD to get
> their act together,

So, OJ wasn't guilty.

> it's better to let O.J. walk, than to tolerate
> that racist "police work".

No, he was released because of the shit police work, they couldn't prove his

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ns57giluf26htc18h...@4ax.com...

> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>O.J. got this verdict [not guilty], correctly I might add, while
>>>>>being proven guilty in the same trial.
>>>>
>>>>No, he didn't.
>>>
>>>That's where you're a fucking retard, the evidence against O.J. was

>>>overwhelming, but the jury wanted, correctly, to tell the LAPD to get
>>>their act together, it's better to let O.J. walk, than to tolerate

>>>that racist "police work".
>>

>>The jury found him innocent, and there was ZERO "overwhelming
>>evidence," you ignorant faggot.
>
>
> The jury acquitted him, that hardly means they thought he was
> innocent, you complete dumbshit.

They don't have to. They are not there to judge whether someone is innocent,
but rather are they guilty of the crime(s) beyond a reasonable doubt.

> They did the right thing, but in an
> unusual case.

So OJ is not guilty, and you can't simply declare he is.

>>Then you insanely blather he was "proven guilty in the same trial."
>>You've obviously high on something.
>
>

> You don't think finding both victims' blood, in his car, was evidence,
> Einstein?

Not really. Given they were both regularly in his vehicle and given police
evidence tampering, we don't really know anything about the blood in the car
that is definitive.

> Or his previous violence and threats on his ex-wife?

Not what he was on trial for.

Lots of people make threats. You've made some here yourself. Does that make
you guilty of murder?

> Or
> the fact that there was nothing to remotely implicate anyone else?

Irrelevant. The issue is whether OJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is not their job to determine if someone else is guilty.

Does anyone else get the sense that Joel utterly failed government in
school?

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:pc67gi9ko67r1mvaj...@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> [Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

>
>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>O.J. got this verdict [not guilty], correctly I might add, while
>>>>>>being proven guilty in the same trial.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he didn't.
>>>>
>>>>That's where you're a fucking retard, the evidence against O.J. was
>>>>overwhelming, but the jury wanted, correctly, to tell the LAPD to get
>>>>their act together, it's better to let O.J. walk, than to tolerate
>>>>that racist "police work".
>>>
>>>The jury found him innocent, and there was ZERO "overwhelming
>>>evidence," you ignorant faggot.
>>
>>
>>The jury acquitted him, that hardly means they thought he was
>>innocent, you complete dumbshit.
>

> Yeah. It does.
>
> Holy FUCK but you're stupid.
>
> How did you get this dumb?
>
> EXPLAIN---->

Well it started when he was 16 and he crossed state lines to get sexually
abused.....

... it's only gone downhill from there.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
in message

news:2q68gi1cukji8t175...@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...

probably the day after he was sexually abused at 16...

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ds97gid15ulsgu9k8...@4ax.com...

> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>EXPLAIN---->
>
>
> Message-ID: <ns57giluf26htc18h...@4ax.com>
>

> You don't think finding both victims' blood, in his car, was evidence,

> Einstein? Or his previous violence and threats on his ex-wife? Or

> the fact that there was nothing to remotely implicate anyone else?
>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Already answered and as usual snipped by your cowardly Caucasian
> boomer dumb ass. Go fuck yourself.

And Joel resorts to racism when he doesn't get his way....

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ppa7gi99kvcmp98e8...@4ax.com...
> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
>
>>> the evidence against O.J. [Simpson] was

>>> overwhelming, but the jury wanted, correctly, to tell the LAPD to get
>>> their act together, it's better to let O.J. walk, than to tolerate
>>> that racist "police work".
>>

>>Just like Kyle Rittonhouse?
>
>
> I saw nothing that would constitute reasonable doubt,

Well, given you can't see a guy in a dress does bring your ability to see
reality into question....

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
in message

news:hp57gidchbil6uq5d...@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> [Default] Joel <joel...@gmail.com> typed:

>
>>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>I know that, and O.J. got this verdict, correctly I might add, while
>>>>being proven guilty in the same trial. It's an interesting case, even
>>>>if you don't care about celebrity stuff, the fact of his fame was only
>>>>relevant in that it brought attention to the trial, which turned out
>>>>to have a strong, clear "reasonable doubt" allegation against a key
>>>>detective on the case.
>>>

>>>OMG
>>>
>>>But there is no reasonable doubt about Rittenhouse.
>>>
>>>This guy is nothing but a troll, people!
>>
>>
>>There's no doubt about either case in terms of what happened, they're
>>both killers, but indeed Rittenhouse should have been convicted, and
>>O.J. was correctly not.
>
> Rittenhouse should NOT have been convicted, as he was innocent, and
> was a hero for defending himself and killing a couple of child
> molesters to boot.

That could be why Joel is so upset about it.

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ok37gi92dj3ltgpef...@4ax.com...

> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>I know that, and O.J. got this verdict, correctly I might add, while
>>>being proven guilty in the same trial. It's an interesting case, even
>>>if you don't care about celebrity stuff, the fact of his fame was only
>>>relevant in that it brought attention to the trial, which turned out
>>>to have a strong, clear "reasonable doubt" allegation against a key
>>>detective on the case.
>>
>>OMG
>>
>>But there is no reasonable doubt about Rittenhouse.
>>
>>This guy is nothing but a troll, people!
>
>
> There's no doubt about either case in terms of what happened, they're
> both killers,

Well Rittenhouse was a killer, but that doesn't make it a crime. For the OJ,
they couldn't show it beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as they couldn't show
that Rittenhouse committed murder.

> but indeed Rittenhouse should have been convicted,

Why?

> and
> O.J. was correctly not.

So now you're saying you've been wrong about OJ not being convicted all this
time.

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:iq37gidkjb6427tts...@4ax.com...

> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
>
>>> I know that, and O.J. got this verdict, correctly I might add, while
>>> being proven guilty in the same trial. It's an interesting case, even
>>> if you don't care about celebrity stuff, the fact of his fame was only
>>> relevant in that it brought attention to the trial, which turned out
>>> to have a strong, clear "reasonable doubt" allegation against a key
>>> detective on the case.
>>

>>Jury found him not guilty. What if the jury finds Trump not guilty? You
>>will go apeshit.
>
>
> They're not similar cases. Ultimately, what happens to Trump has
> nothing to do with me.

And the OJ case did?

Please detail the particulars of how you were involved.

You do understand there is no statute of limitations on murder.. perhaps
Joel should be considered as a person of interest since he claims
involvement in those murders.

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:lgj8gid39lf65tml0...@4ax.com...

> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>Skeeter wrote:
>>
>>>So he was proven innocent in a court of law.
>>
>>A lot of idiocy being posted. He was not "proven" or "found"
>>innocent.
>>
>>He was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
>
> The evidence in one's *mind* *was* beyond a reasonable doubt,

Well your mind is questionable given your bias, drug history and denial of
reality.

> but that
> doesn't matter if a detective, as far as anyone can tell, plants
> evidence,

Sure it does. It raises the question of how many other pieces of evidence
were planted.

>and goes on to be blindsided about his known racism, on the
> witness stand.

Which changes nothing about the now questionable accuracy of the evidence.

> That is technical reasonable doubt.

IOW, OJ should have been acquitted.

> The jury did the
> correct and just thing.

Glad to see you finally admit that.

[Skeeter]

In article <68i8gid1cn385274t...@4ax.com>,
chr...@nospam.invalid says...

Innocent then.

[K Wills]

In article <ue1rdr$39rl4$2...@dont-email.me>, me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...

Robert Khardasian was OJ Simpson's lawyer, and thus began the family tradition of
getting black men off.

--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1

[Joel]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:lgj8gid39lf65tml0...@4ax.com...
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>

>>>He [O.J. Simpson in 1995] was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

>>
>> The evidence in one's *mind* *was* beyond a reasonable doubt,
>
>Well your mind is questionable given your bias, drug history and denial of
>reality.

You're just a flat-out liar and dweeb, so keep thinking I'm worried
about your lunatic pronouncements.

>> but that
>> doesn't matter if a detective, as far as anyone can tell, plants
>> evidence,
>
>Sure it does. It raises the question of how many other pieces of evidence
>were planted.

None, dummy, Fuhrman wasn't working alone, but he *was* alone, when he
supposedly found the glove where he supposedly found it. If it
doesn't fit, you must acquit.

>>and goes on to be blindsided about his known racism, on the
>> witness stand.
>
>Which changes nothing about the now questionable accuracy of the evidence.

It already *was* questionable, though, at least potentially.

>> That is technical reasonable doubt.
>
>IOW, OJ should have been acquitted.

Duh, I said that all along, illiterate retard.

>> The jury did the
>> correct and just thing.
>
>Glad to see you finally admit that.

I always said it, you're just a shameless liar, it probably comes from
the "news" "media" you consume, brainwashing you to think like a
worthless human animal, a slimeball, fascist, hate-filled piece of
garbage.

--
Joel Crump

[Joel]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>> The jury [in the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial] did the

>> correct and just thing.
>
>Glad to see you finally admit that.

"O.J. got this verdict, correctly I might add" - Me, at the start of
the debate.

Pwned, lying loser.

--
Joel Crump

[mixed nuts]

Does a $1.6 Billion fine for being convicted by a Manhattan jury for 17
counts of criminal tax fraud count? I think it does.

--
Grizzly H.

[Skeeter]

In article <ue206s$38jup$1...@dont-email.me>,
melops...@undulatus.budgie says...

and he spins away from the context.

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:hhv8gi1fe50nm755v...@4ax.com...

> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:lgj8gid39lf65tml0...@4ax.com...
>>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>He [O.J. Simpson in 1995] was not found guilty beyond a reasonable
>>>>doubt.
>>>
>>> The evidence in one's *mind* *was* beyond a reasonable doubt,
>>
>>Well your mind is questionable given your bias, drug history and denial of
>>reality.
>
>
> You're just a flat-out liar and dweeb, so keep thinking I'm worried
> about your lunatic pronouncements.

Poor Joel can't accept the truth, and can't deny it since he knows he told
us.. instead he lashes out in impotent fury to try to distract from whether
what he thinks should matter in the face of the facts and evidence.

>>> but that
>>> doesn't matter if a detective, as far as anyone can tell, plants
>>> evidence,
>>
>>Sure it does. It raises the question of how many other pieces of evidence
>>were planted.
>
>
> None, dummy,

How do you know? Please detail the source of your knowledge.

>Fuhrman wasn't working alone, but he *was* alone, when he
> supposedly found the glove where he supposedly found it.

And is that the only piece of evidence he was involved in? No. Could he have
planted other 'evidence' to be found by another? Who knows.

The fact is reasonable doubt now exists on the conduct of the
investigators...

> If it
> doesn't fit, you must acquit.

And given the conditions, he couldn't have put it on if he wanted to... so a
pretty bad ploy by the prosecution.

>>>and goes on to be blindsided about his known racism, on the
>>> witness stand.
>>
>>Which changes nothing about the now questionable accuracy of the evidence.
>
>
> It already *was* questionable, though, at least potentially.

Exactly.. and yet you tell us above the it was beyond reproach.

[Scout]

"Joel" <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2109gih5rejg09o3r...@4ax.com...

And then turned around and said they got it wrong.

So are you stupid, a liar, or just trolling. After all, this isn't the first
time you've done this.

[%]

is your nephew hunter coming to spend the weekend with you

[%]

do you feel cheated

[%]

Joel wrote:
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Skeeter wrote:
>>
>>> So he was proven innocent in a court of law.
>>
>> A lot of idiocy being posted. He was not "proven" or "found"
>> innocent.
>>

>> He was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
>
> The evidence in one's *mind* *was* beyond a reasonable doubt, but that

> doesn't matter if a detective, as far as anyone can tell, plants

> evidence, and goes on to be blindsided about his known racism, on the
> witness stand. That is technical reasonable doubt. The jury did the
> correct and just thing.
>
deleted unread

[%]

you admitted it

[Skeeter]

In article <pbudnVmlMoY3JJn4...@giganews.com>, pursent100
@gmail.com says...

he was but i told him we didn't have any crack so maybe not