evidence. it there is no new evidence to be found, some of these transactions are years old. people in the grand jury, that at that been provided to them, they don t know the possibilities with this investigation. pete: same guy, no new information. special counsel is compromised. here is the irs whistle-blower who is largely responsible. he is not independent. we have provided multiple pieces of evidence to show that he has provided treatment, they have stopped investigation steps, and all under weiss, so he s not going to stymie the investigation steps back i don t think that is likely to occur. pete: the reason why there a special prosecutor is because of these whistle-blowers, and now they re saying that the whole thing is going to be a sham. democrats are never going to admit that this whole thing reeks because they re getting
i think what the whistle-blowers want to happen here is the light of day to shine on the investigation, the investigation steps. but clearly when people say there s no evidence that joe biden was in contact with hunter biden s foreign business associates, evidence is defined by testimony or documents. in this case, they already presented rob walker s interview transcript. there s the whatsapp messaging threatening the chinese officials that his father will do things. there s e-mails about significance of a share for the big guy. so under all of the very common definitions of evidence, there s clearly evidence that joe biden was involved in those meetings. devin archer just adds to them. trace: does this take you back to awhile ago where there should be a special counsel
Salute: oltre 10 milioni i fumatori italiani, il 35% ha provato a smettere almeno una volta ma senza successo meteoweb.eu - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from meteoweb.eu Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
harder and more so on these few swing senators, particularly on the republican side to decide who do i believe? to the point of an investigation first before testimony, there are other people who have been identified as having knowledge about the facts here. they are not even scheduled for testimony, no less investigation steps. to set it up as a he said she said is unfair as legal process when other witnesses can be called. i will leave it with the thought that if she testifies one thing in open session and this is sworn testimony. if she lies, that s perjury. if he said something different, if he lies, that s perjury. as a result if there is two different stories, one presumably might be lying and subject to then an fbi investigation and then criminal investigation if in fact one of them under oath was lying and committed perjury.