Washington Post’s Philip Bump defends Biden’s alleged corruption, but falls short.

Philip Bump: A Man of Confusion

Imagine not knowing ​the difference between‍ “proof” and “evidence,” ​plus retaining ‌a voice two octaves above ⁣a normal‍ man,‌ and you’ll have a decent idea of what it’s like⁤ to be Philip Bump.

Bump is⁢ The Washington‍ Post writer ⁣”focused largely on the⁣ numbers behind politics,” according to his bio, but he is most recently known for ⁣letting his ass hang out on the internet by way of a highly embarrassing interview with podcaster and‌ Comedy Cellar owner Noam Dworman. In the ⁣interview, Dworman tells Bump that he wanted to talk ⁣with the “smartest” person who‍ disagrees with him on the significance of the Joe Biden corruption saga as⁣ it relates to Biden’s son, Hunter. After an hour ⁣of innocuous questions from Dworman, Bump called the affair “a setup” and walked out.

Wild.

But during⁣ that​ hour, it was ⁣remarkable how frequently, in utter⁢ despair, Bump pleaded for Dworman to offer him “evidence” that the president is or was directly involved in his son’s comically unfathomable foreign⁤ business operation.

Dworman conceded that every‌ exhibit he had to offer was simply evidence, rather than ironclad proof, before playing clips of Hunter’s former business partners, citing Congressional testimony,‍ and reading from written communications, all of ‌which indicate ⁣that Joe Biden not only knew but was a cognizant player in his son’s dealings. And those dealings, worth millions, were made possible purely by nature of the ⁢Bidens having high-level U.S. government influence ⁢via Joe having⁤ been a longtime senator and⁢ then a two-term vice president.

The evidence is overwhelming. ‍Even if nobody calls it “proof,” it’s irrefutable.

Proof would be a ​video or​ audio recording of Biden and his son discussing the details of their shakedown schemes. To date, that’s not ​known to​ exist. Proof would be testimony‍ that the former vice president signed contracts with his son’s business associates. To date, that’s not known to exist. Proof would be ⁢at least ​a photo of Biden ‍with his ⁤son’s clients.

Wait, never mind. That last one actually does exist.‍ My fault!

All the while, Bump said ⁢over and over that none of it‌ was “evidence”​ when, if he were a smart person, he would‍ have said none ⁤of it was “proof.”

“You have no⁤ evidence that Joe Biden acted on Hunter Biden’s behalf, or that Joe Biden took money!”

“Find me evidence! There is none!”

“You’ve offered no evidence beyond your​ parsing…”

“This conversation is‍ silly!”

“This is why I keep saying‍ it’s silly!”

Curiously, Bump would, at‌ times throughout the interview, ⁤reject anything Dworman said⁤ with the declaration that Dworman ⁤”refused” to “engage with” the contradictory‍ “broader evidence.”

Okay, yes, there ⁣is contradictory evidence to suggest Joe Biden is actually an absolute moron who in no way had any idea that‍ his son was using his high-ranking​ position in the U.S. government to rake in millions and that Biden in ​no way cooperated‍ because he never directly accepted ⁣funds from the scheme. But one set of evidence doesn’t negate another. They compete. And​ the competition is only fair when people ⁣like Bump weigh‍ them fairly, which he doesn’t.

He sets it aside and ‍says it’s “not evidence.”

Criminal trials routinely⁢ conclude ​with a conviction not based on proof but on evidence. Alex Murdaugh this ⁣year was found guilty ‍of murdering his wife and son, though he never admitted what he did. Instead, a⁣ jury convicted him based on where ⁤he claimed to be and where evidence showed he wasn’t.

Joe Biden has been‌ caught in countless lies on this exact subject. Philip Bump is either too stupid or just as dishonest.