The WSJ newsroom wrote a piece after investigating that Chinese deal and guess what … there was no 10% cut for ‘the big guy’ because there was no deal.
Since I can’t embed a picture in a post, a link to Twitter:
Yeah, about that. The one of the left is the signature from the store, supposedly Hunter’s. The one on the right is a VERIFIED signature of his.
Graphology is not one of my major studies, but still… 
What a pathetic attempt at forgery.
I really wish Biden had pushed back harder on the Hunter bullshit during the debate, with the same (smart) comeback that he had whenever Trump brought up Bernie Sanders or any number of other people: “They are not running for president!” He should have simply said, “Donald here is trying to make it look like this election is between him and Hunter Biden. But Hunter is not going to be your president. Hunter is not going to have anything to do with your government. It’s not going to be Hunter who coordinates the country’s response to COVID and its economic recovery. HUNTER DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS…YOU ASSHOLE.”
This is where you lose credibility. Ok, sure, Biden told some lies, but more stupidly than Trump? I really just can’t fathom this opinion.
to add to what iiandyiiii said, not even Trump is suggesting Hunter Biden did anything illegal*, and even if the emails are real, so what? They mentions a meeting which never took place and a deal that was never done.
*it appears he did what Ivanka and Junior are still doing, using their father’s name to make deals. Where is the outrage on FOX about the 18 trademarks Ivanka received from the Chinese government or the cash infusion Kushner received from Qatar ? Or all the foreign money that she and Junior are receiving from deals, sometimes from questionable people, when they pledged not to do so while Trump was President? Trump and FOX believe Joe Biden is guilty of money laundering, they also believe Trump turned control of his busineses over to his children and has no idea of what they are doing with them.
Backing up from the details for a second and looking at the big picture, to be brutally honest I have to say that I was disappointed in Biden’s performance. I have a great liking for the man and faith in his abilities as president, but what matters in this superficial political theater – to the extent that political theater matters at all – is how the candidate comes across. And last night was not a good night for Biden from the standpoint of low-information imbeciles, which describes a disconcerting number of voters.
Trump came across as energetic and, due to having an ego the size of the universe, supremely confident, even as he lied his ass off every time his opened his contorted pie-hole. Biden, in contrast, looked tired and mostly failed to call out Trump as he should have been called out for his lying and corruption. Look at Lelsley Stahl’s 60 Minutes interview with Trump. She was far more aggressive and emphatic than Biden ever was last night even in his best moments, and she’s not even running for anything, but merely trying to be an effective journalist. It’s a shame that Biden couldn’t channel even a fraction of that energy.
Last night did little to help Biden. I just hope it doesn’t erode his lead. I suppose the good news is that CNN’s poll seemed to show a majority believing Biden did better in the debate. Fox News, of course, concludes that Trump won, but their evidence for that is laid out in the usual hack-job opinion piece.
Yeah, you are right. Trump’s lies were stupid. But he lies so much and so often that they kind of just blend in to the background. I take back what I said - Trump’s lies were stupid too.
Regarding Trump saying “good” referring to kids not being reunited with their parents, everything I’ve seen suggests that he was saying “go ahead” to the moderator, who was trying to ask him a question. I haven’t had time to check out any clips to see for myself, so I’m withholding judgement.
What say you all?
I’m just going to assume this is a direct Trump quote. Sounds legit. 
I bet people are wishing they could go back in time and have Bernie or Pete as the candidate. They would have left Donald curled up on the floor with their skill. Oh well. Thank God theres no more debates.
If I could go back in time, I’m gonna go further back than that.
Legit LOL there.
I’m quite happy with any Democrat.
I’ve seen one clip, which did fairly clearly have him saying ‘go ahead’. I don’t now remember where I saw it, so am not sure how good the source was; so am still somewhat withholding judgement myself, but it does at least seem plausible.
During the debate itself I don’t think I was looking at the screen at that moment; just thought I heard “good” with my head turned away. But it’s possible I didn’t hear it clearly.
Yes, because it’d be worth sacrificing the candidate who currently holds a ten point polling lead over Trump for a candidate who may have gotten in a few better zingers in a debate. 
Another one that I haven’t seen getting much attention:
Trump:
Following a debate question on immigration, President Trump said that the only undocumented immigrants who appear for their court dates are those with the “lowest IQ.”
If you really don’t believe that Trump called people who serve (and die) in the US military ‘suckers’ and ‘losers,’ would you please raise your hand ?
Exactly.
As you were …
Indeed—the point is not to win the debate, but to win the election.
But, speaking of that, I’ve wondered: what if the presidential candidates were allowed to designate a “champion” to “fight” for them in the debate? What if there were a debate between, not the candidates themselves, but their chosen proxies who would defend and argue for them? Would people watch such a debate? Would it be useful?
I find the debate format less than useless and not highly relevant to the way the person will need to perform as president.
The way I recall the “good” vs “go ahead” question is that Trump said both – but in both cases it was more innocent than it seems.
Listen, no one has more disrespect for Trump than I do; I can barely sleep some nights worrying about him being reelected somehow. But in this case he was not being evil – just trying to avert a jab to the face. It was at a time of cross talk between all three people on stage (which were so many fewer and milder than before we tend not to notice them here). Trump had just scored with “who build the cages Joe?” While Biden was silent (but mentally forming his response and counter attack), the moderator said “we have to move on to another question” and trump replied “good” just as Joe was starting to say (with pointed finger as I recall) “Five hun… Over Five Hundred…” When Biden started then paused, the moderator said something like ‘we have to move to another question’ or I have another question’ or maybe “President Trump, I have another question for you.” That is when Trump said “Go ahead.”
Trump knew he was about to get slapped and was trying to get the moderator to save him before Biden got the words put together and spoken out loud. Both of his comments were spoken to the moderator and made to thwart Biden’s attack, but neither was aimed at the point that migrant children were being kept in cages. Fair is fair, even for Trump.
Just when it seemed things would move on (which would have spared Trump the attack and Biden the delay that looked like stupor), Biden came out with his accusation which still was a bit stilted and halting. (And he was the one interrupting at that point.)
Trump was not evil, and Biden was . . . verbally inept in that moment. Still Biden is a hundred times the man Trump is as far as goodness, decency, and service to the country is concerned.