Will Hunter "Bagman" Biden go to jail tomorrow?

T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

Serial Thread Killer
It's looking pretty good that he will.

Seems the judge in his child support / paternity case in Arkansas has had all he's going to take from Bagman. Biden is supposed to appear in court there tomorrow and if he doesn't the judge has said he'll issue a warrant for his arrest and have him jailed for contempt.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/04/hunter-biden-could-go-to-jail-tomorrow/
https://www.nysun.com/article/hunte...as-jail-in-increasingly-bitter-paternity-suit

Couldn't happen to a shittier asshole than Bagman...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's looking pretty good that he will.

Seems the judge in his child support / paternity case in Arkansas has had all he's going to take from Bagman. Biden is supposed to appear in court there tomorrow and if he doesn't the judge has said he'll issue a warrant for his arrest and have him jailed for contempt.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/04/hunter-biden-could-go-to-jail-tomorrow/
https://www.nysun.com/article/hunte...as-jail-in-increasingly-bitter-paternity-suit

Couldn't happen to a shittier asshole than Bagman...
Click to expand...
The little worm will show up.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's looking pretty good that he will.

Seems the judge in his child support / paternity case in Arkansas has had all he's going to take from Bagman. Biden is supposed to appear in court there tomorrow and if he doesn't the judge has said he'll issue a warrant for his arrest and have him jailed for contempt.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/04/hunter-biden-could-go-to-jail-tomorrow/
https://www.nysun.com/article/hunte...as-jail-in-increasingly-bitter-paternity-suit

Couldn't happen to a shittier asshole than Bagman...
Click to expand...

Of course you do realize you are citing two conservative journalist writing opinion pieces in recognized secondary conservative sources?

And if the guy is guilty, he is guilty, he's not running for President, but guarantee if the guy you want to run for President was found guilty of any legal violation at all you'd still vote for him refusing to accept that he did anything ever illegal
 
archives said:
Of course you do realize you are citing two conservative journalist writing opinion pieces in recognized secondary conservative sources?

And if the guy is guilty, he is guilty, he's not running for President, but guarantee if the guy you want to run for President was found guilty of any legal violation at all you'd still vote for him refusing to accept that he did anything ever illegal
Click to expand...

Ad hominem.
 
archives said:
Not at all, they are opinion pieces by conservative journalists published in conservative sources, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it sure as hell ain't an elephant
Click to expand...

It is ad hominem. You are attacking the source, not making any claims, statements, factual points, or the like about why they are wrong. That is classic ad hominem.

Ad-Hominem.png


To paraphrase what you said, You (me) chose opinion pieces by conservative journalists published in conservative sources, so you are fucking wrong dickhead! There's no difference (other than the added gratuitous vulgarities) between that and what you said. Ad hominem.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It is ad hominem. You are attacking the source, not making any claims, statements, factual points, or the like about why they are wrong. That is classic ad hominem.

To paraphrase what you said, You (me) chose opinion pieces by conservative journalists published in conservative sources, so you are fucking wrong dickhead! There's no difference (other than the added gratuitous vulgarities) between that and what you said. Ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Still incorrect, I never attacked the content of the opinion pieces, "Of course you do realize you are citing two conservative journalist writing opinion pieces in recognized secondary conservative sources," rather pointed out the obvious, one could pretty much guess what they are going to say before even reading them, and they didn't disappoint

And regarding the actual content, I noted that "if the guy is guilty, he is guilty, he's not running for President," adding that it is interesting how many on the right seem so concerned about Hunter's possible illegalities but they completely ignore those of Trump, who is running for President
 
archives said:
Still incorrect, I never attacked the content of the opinion pieces, "Of course you do realize you are citing two conservative journalist writing opinion pieces in recognized secondary conservative sources," rather pointed out the obvious, one could pretty much guess what they are going to say before even reading them, and they didn't disappoint

And regarding the actual content, I noted that "if the guy is guilty, he is guilty, he's not running for President," adding that it is interesting how many on the right seem so concerned about Hunter's possible illegalities but they completely ignore those of Trump, who is running for President
Click to expand...

You attacked them as being conservative and therefore not credible while offering no proof. That is ad hominem.
 
Nordberg said:
The right does not need facts. Belief will suffice. They have alternate facts that only satisfy themselves.
Click to expand...

I believe that Cocaine Hunter is a criminal who used his father’s influence to enrich himself and his crooked father.

The Republicans have evidence, let’s see if Biden’s corrupt J/D will prosecute either.
 
Earl said:
I believe that Cocaine Hunter is a criminal who used his father’s influence to enrich himself and his crooked father.

The Republicans have evidence, let’s see if Biden’s corrupt J/D will prosecute either.
Click to expand...
Sadly I think the DOJ will give Hunter a sweetheart deal and try to sweep the bulk of the evidence of corruption under the carpet.
 
ExpressLane said:
Sadly I think the DOJ will give Hunter a sweetheart deal and try to sweep the bulk of the evidence of corruption under the carpet.
Click to expand...

Probably so.

I believe the Republicans in the House have enough to ask for criminal indictments but the Biden J/D will do as you say.

Probation for Hunter and nada for Slow Joe using his high government office to enrich himself and his family.

This is Justice in America…or total lack there of.
 
archives said:
Of course you do realize you are citing two conservative journalist writing opinion pieces in recognized secondary conservative sources?

And if the guy is guilty, he is guilty, he's not running for President, but guarantee if the guy you want to run for President was found guilty of any legal violation at all you'd still vote for him refusing to accept that he did anything ever illegal
Click to expand...

So leftists want presidents of high moral character, is the point you're making here? What's the moral basis you use for determining which person meets your standards for beung president? I am almost giddy in anticipation of what the answers to those questions will be.
 
archives said:
Still incorrect, I never attacked the content of the opinion pieces, "Of course you do realize you are citing two conservative journalist writing opinion pieces in recognized secondary conservative sources," rather pointed out the obvious, one could pretty much guess what they are going to say before even reading them, and they didn't disappoint

And regarding the actual content, I noted that "if the guy is guilty, he is guilty, he's not running for President," adding that it is interesting how many on the right seem so concerned about Hunter's possible illegalities but they completely ignore those of Trump, who is running for President
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's a severe case of hypocrisy.

Hunter Biden is guilty of....well.....of something we haven't found yet.

BUT

Trump is not guilty of rape, of tax evasion, of mishandling classified documents, of fomenting the J6 insurrection.

iu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top