LOL: Republican FAILS HARD when asked for SINGLE Biden wrongdoing

The search continues courageously for the evidence against Joe Biden, never mind that he's been in public life for 50 years and they just can't seem to find the evidence. And unfortunately for Congresswoman Nancy Mace, why does it always happen to Nancy Mace? She just can't cite even a shred of an iota of a kernel of a crumb of a seed of evidence. The latest line of questioning from Fox News is Maria Bartiromo. To her credit, it's a good question. You claim that Joe Biden corruptly made policy decisions for profit, either for his own profit or for Hunter Biden's profit. Can you name one such decision for which he profited from, which he profited? And Nancy Mase is like, no, I haven't had time to research that really, because you're going pretty high and fast here on an impeachment inquiry because you're convinced that the evidence is there. You haven't had time. Listen to this. Have you been able to identify specific policy decisions that Joe Biden made that he was paid for? Right. I have not had the the the ability to research that. I've been looking more at the LLC's, the bank records, all of the lies that Joe Biden has told and what evidence we have so far in meetings, dinners, appointments. Yeah. If lies were an impeachable offense, imagine the White House records, et cetera, phone messages, text messages, e-mails, et cetera. Connecting the dots with Joe. A lot of etceteras in there. I don't know why she says it that way, but when it's all et cetera, at some point we're going to need the real stuff. So let me give you a little bit of the back story here. Previously, they were alleging the big decision, the big policy thing that Biden did to benefit, if not himself, to benefit his son, Hunter Biden, was to push for the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor, Victor Shoken. The story they were telling was Biden of his own accord decided, I'm just going to demand they fire this guy or otherwise I'm going to keep a billion dollars away from them in aid. The argument was Shoken was investigating Burisma. Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma. So by getting Shoken out of the way, he gets the investigation to stop and it doesn't affect Hunter Biden's finances. And maybe Joe Biden was getting some kind of kickback. The problems with that are numerous. Number one, last week, former Ukrainian President Poroshenko went on Fox News and said he was fired because he was nuts. He was just terrible. It was a horrible guy doing terrible things, horribly corrupt, not because it was Joe Biden looking to get him out of the way, completely blew up the conspiracy theory. Secondly, Biden was merely the messenger of the Obama administration's position on Shoken, which is he's corrupt and he should be fired. And by the way, that was not a position held only by the United States. The United States and many of our allies all were unanimous. Shoken's a problem. He's corrupt. He should be fired now that that decision has been totally destroyed as the decision Biden made for profit, the policy he pushed for for profit. They're back to ground zero and they have nothing. And again, at some point we have to apply some simple version of Occam's razor is the explanation for why they have no evidence that over a 50 year period, the now demented Biden who doesn't know what day it is, has meticulously hidden all evidence of widespread criminality, including bribery that benefited him, bribery that benefited Hunter Biden. Laptop evidence has been destroyed and documentary evidence has been destroyed. And everybody who knows him has been bribed or threatened with death. Is that the explanation for why there is no evidence, OK, on one on the one hand, or is the explanation for why there is no evidence that Joe Biden didn't do any of these things? He didn't get involved in some kind of corrupt criminal bribery conspiracy with Hunter Biden and maybe Hillary Clinton's involved or Obama. I don't even really know. Maybe that's the explanation. At some point, we have to go with the simpler explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and the fewer cover ups, unless we have some specific reason to say the explanation isn't that there are no crimes. It's this other thing that would involve 100 people and 50 years of covering stuff up. I don't know, guys. I'm just asking the question. Maybe at some point we go with what is most obvious. The David Pakman Show at David Pakman Dotcom.