When something real happens, come with evidence.Several of the questions that have been shoved in my face are the complete opposite scenario and the response is just the same. So don't act like I'm alone there.
I think one (of many) of the Republicans problem is they're The Boy Who Cried Conspiracy. They bring so much crap up that on the occasion something real does happen it's hard to take them at face value.
When they're former intelligence officials and not average citizens it's a little different. If they had any proof I'd totally agree. Since it was basically doublespeak trying to discredit it without any proof it's not the same. They should be held to a higher standard. Isn't that something the left prides itself on?No, it's not a conspiracy. There was nothing hidden here. Writing a letter in attempt to swing an election is a completely legitimate activity. Were you unhappy with the outcome, that the treasonous shitbag lost?
That's a pretty circular argument if in this case he was being protected and the evidence is never allowed out which is what they're basically alleging. There's evidence now that the laptop was his yet there's still people parroting it in this thread that it wasn't.When something real happens, come with evidence.
Well I would have but it was getting laundered. Thanks for at least not shouting.Ok cool, but he is not posting a screenshot of him self in full KKK gear and we were sort of getting into the Hunter side of things again *without* this becoming a 20 vs 1 shouting match on a side track. Some times we *are* an echo chamber.
"There's evidence, I'm sure of it."That's a pretty circular argument if in this case he was being protected and the evidence is never allowed out which is what they're basically alleging. There's evidence now that the laptop was his yet there's still people parroting it in this thread that it wasn't.
You don't want evidence you want to ignore anything you don't agree with.
Excerpts from the testimony to Congress"There's evidence, I'm sure of it."
"Okay, let's see it."
"It's hidden."
There is evidence that some of the material purported to be from the laptop may have originated with Hunter Biden. How the material got to where it is is unknown. It could have come from a laptop, it could have been skimmed from iCloud, combined with fake material, and added to the laptop or never even touched the laptop. There is no evidence chain because Trump's own lawyer screwed the pooch. Take a picture of a gun and photoshop in smoke, "See, smoking gun!" It's amateur hour.
Uh no,All this was after Rudy broke the chain of evidence. Note that only the first paragraph you quote has anything of substance. The last two paragraphs are opinion and speculation.
Again, there is evidence, like the dick pics, that Hunter Biden's iCloud files were compromised. There is no clean source of evidence showing what might have been Biden's and what may have been added.Uh no,
"For example, in August 2020, we got the results back from an iCloud search warrant. Unlike the laptop, these came to the investigative team from a third-party record keeper and included a set of messages."
You don't think there's an ability to see what has or has not been changed on a separate server? I don't claim to be an expert here. But if what you are sayin is true he wouldn't have even gotten the hand slaps.Again, there is evidence, like the dick pics, that Hunter Biden's iCloud files were compromised. There is no clean source of evidence showing what might have been Biden's and what may have been added.
Were the charges (a felony conviction is hardly a hand slap) not supported by other evidence? If not, then you are certainly correct that charges should never have been filed based on compromised evidence.You don't think there's an ability to see what has or has not been changed on a separate server? I don't claim to be an expert here. But if what you are sayin is true he wouldn't have even gotten the hand slaps.
If you want to say conversation is useless here that’s fine but you should stop repeating obvious falsehoods.It's kind of hard to respond the 20 different people at the same time. Especially when half are insulting you by the end. And like I mentioned elsewhere the Wagner/ Russia thing started and I spent most of the time there once I realized it.
One, they're not on trial. I mentioned in a previous post that I did agree after going to the House they should go back through the Senate and have a public forum.
At the same time Democrats tried to vote to keep the transcript secret. Why did they do that?
You have proof of this? Since you're demanding it I will as well.
The intel people that signed that letter did so to help Biden win. They never said it was disinformation, they just inferred it potentially was.
Biden campaign, Blinken orchestrated intel letter to discredit Hunter Biden laptop story, ex-CIA official says
A former CIA official testified that then-Biden campaign senior adviser, now-Secretary of State Antony Blinken "played a role in the inception" of the public statement signed by current and past intelligence officials that claimed the Huntejudiciary.house.gov
"...it was to help Vice President Biden."
Morell was asked why he wanted to help Biden.
"Because I wanted him to win the election," Morell testified."
That's Michael Morell Former United States Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Was that letter the basis of your "proof" it was disinformation?
I don't discount the possibility that it was. But at the very least some of the data on it is legitimate. Like I said according to the whistleblowers as well the FBI knew it was his.
Do you believe the entire laptop and it's data are disinformation?
If you see me repeating a falsehood then point it out. I'm definitely not perfect.If you want to say conversation is useless here that’s fine but you should stop repeating obvious falsehoods.
Actually several people seem to have, or seem to have decided there since it's possible it was the whole thing should be ignored.No one has ever claimed the entire laptop was disinformation, just that it had the traits of overall disinformation by mixing real things with fake ones.
You seem like someone who is reasonable, and I’m excited to engage with you, but you also seem to have taken in a lot of lies by right wing media.
People have repeatedly said (correctly) that because the sourcing of the laptop is shady AND that Giuliani repeatedly refused to allow its contents to be verified that it’s shady.If you see me repeating a falsehood then point it out. I'm definitely not perfect.
Actually several people seem to have, or seem to have decided there since it's possible it was the whole thing should be ignored.
I don't read fiction being created by a group of people who are proven liars, manipulators, conspiracy theory supporting/pushing people who's motives are to destroy democracy in this country.I didn't write the laws. I just repeated what it asks. If you think it shouldn't be that's fine. I probably would agree. Maybe you should do something about changing it?
Have you bothered to read any of them at all yet? Or just the blanket it's not something I want to hear so I'll stick my head in the sand and I assume it's BS. It goes both ways.
The felonies were dropped or rather allowed to pass SoL's and he was charged with misdemeanors only which definitely were hand slaps. An email that described how he was going to evade taxes in 2014 and then he did he apparently did exactly like the email said for instance. There was plenty of evidence of transactions, of tax write offs that weren't even close to sounding legit like 30k for school for one of Biden's grandkids for one. They wanted to interview some of the people that the gifts, etc... where given to and were never allowed to because those where people like.. Biden's grandkids. They stated this would have been completely normal in a case like that and they weren't allowed to.Were the charges (a felony conviction is hardly a hand slap) not supported by other evidence? If not, then you are certainly correct that charges should never have been filed based on compromised evidence.
You can’t seem to explain why Trump’s US attorney put his thumb on the scale for Biden’s kid.The felonies were dropped or rather allowed to pass SoL's and he was charged with misdemeanors only which definitely were hand slaps. An email that described how he was going to evade taxes in 2014 and then he did he apparently did exactly like the email said for instance. There was plenty of evidence of transactions, of tax write offs that weren't even close to sounding legit like 30k for school for one of Biden's grandkids for one. They wanted to interview some of the people that the gifts, etc... where given to and were never allowed to because those where people like.. Biden's grandkids. They stated this would have been completely normal in a case like that and they weren't allowed to.
I think definitely the entire thing should be taken with a large grain of salt. At the same time forensics experts at the FBI were given it shortly afterwards. Yes I completely agree that Giuliani should have handled it differently. That's pretty obvious why, they didn't want the other side to know that had it initially, political reasons. I'm really not sure what you're expecting me to say. It does sound shady. At the same time he wasn't in possession of the laptop itself after the FBI was given it, just copies of the data. And copies of that data later on were given out to be examined with some or most of it being verified in those cases.People have repeatedly said (correctly) that because the sourcing of the laptop is shady AND that Giuliani repeatedly refused to allow its contents to be verified that it’s shady.
Do you agree? If not can you give me any reasonable explanation as to why someone would refuse attempts to verify their story?
Again, bolded would have to be based on evidence that isn't compromised. Italics comes from a source who was not privy to the DoJ discussions, you know, unsupported speculation.The felonies were dropped or rather allowed to pass SoL's and he was charged with misdemeanors only which definitely were hand slaps. An email that described how he was going to evade taxes in 2014 and then he did he apparently did exactly like the email said for instance. There was plenty of evidence of transactions, of tax write offs that weren't even close to sounding legit like 30k for school for one of Biden's grandkids for one. They wanted to interview some of the people that the gifts, etc... where given to and were never allowed to because those where people like.. Biden's grandkids. They stated this would have been completely normal in a case like that and they weren't allowed to.
There is paragraph after paragraph of testimony that Weiss was NOT the one making the decisions in many cases. Were back to the he said she said thing again.You can’t seem to explain why Trump’s US attorney put his thumb on the scale for Biden’s kid.
The most likely reason is the obvious one - he didn’t. Your problem is that because the obvious conclusion tells you things you don’t want to believe you’re inventing fantasies.
But before you said the left was saying the entire thing was fake. The left was always saying basically exactly what you’re saying.I think definitely the entire thing should be taken with a large grain of salt. At the same time forensics experts at the FBI were given it shortly afterwards. Yes I completely agree that Giuliani should have handled it differently. That's pretty obvious why, they didn't want the other side to know that had it initially, political reasons. I'm really not sure what you're expecting me to say. It does sound shady. At the same time he wasn't in possession of the laptop itself after the FBI was given it, just copies of the data. And copies of that data later on were given out to be examined with some or most of it being verified in those cases.
The problem with the argument is most of the data they where using in this investigation was from the cloud and from prior to the time it was dropped off, sometimes by years. The iCloud data isn't tainted in the same way that the laptop potentially was.
So again you’re saying Weiss lied to congress?There is paragraph after paragraph of testimony that Weiss was NOT the one making the decisions in many cases. Were back to the he said she said thing again.
"However, I would later be told by United States Attorney Weiss that the D.C. U.S. Attorney would not allow U.S. Attorney Weiss to charge those years in his district. This resulted in United States Attorney Weiss requesting special counsel authority from Main DOJ to charge in the District of Columbia. I don't know if he asked before or after the Attorney General's April 26th, 2022, statement, but Weiss said his request for that authority was denied and that he was told to follow DOJ's process.
The evidence from years prior on the iCloud is not the same as off his laptop. You can look at when it was uploaded and last changed and verify he actually sent that x many years ago. If you're going to say the Russians hacked his iCloud before 2014 and decided to finally bring the laptop they stole from his house to the repairman in 2018 I'm calling bullshit. Some of the emails can be used as evidence.Again, bolded would have to be based on evidence that isn't compromised. Italics comes from a source who was not privy to the DoJ discussions, you know, unsupported speculation.
If you read the letter I linked to you that was the basis of the news article you posted you would get this.The evidence from years prior on the iCloud is not the same as off his laptop. You can look at when it was uploaded and last changed and verify he actually sent that x many years ago. If you're going to say the Russians hacked his iCloud before 2014 and decided to finally bring the laptop they stole from his house to the repairman in 2018 I'm calling bullshit. Some of the emails can be used as evidence.
They weren't DoJ discussions it was testimony from the IRS Lawyer whistleblowers who understand what is and what isn't legitimate. They looked like BS from the outside to them and they wanted to interview them as the normal next step and were denied. I'm not in the mood to go digging through the damn transcript longer to cut and paste it.