Hunter Biden's Laptop

[cmcartman]

So again you’re saying Weiss lied to congress?

As far as I can tell you’re basing this claim on statements from people who have no experience in his office?

Just want to be clear.

I'm saying they're claiming that, correct. And they have paragraphs after paragraph of interactions of where he was obviously not in charge if their testimony is truthful. It isn't just one instance, it seemed to be a semi regular occurrence. There's enough details in them it's hard for me to discount it all as BS. If i feel like it later I'll dig more out, but it's unlikely. I'm kind of tired of being the only one who's apparently read it, or at least read part of it here and trying to discuss anything about it.

 

[cmcartman]

If you read the letter I linked to you that was the basis of the news article you posted you would get this.

It is a very, very common intelligence thing to mix fake stuff with real stuff for precisely the reason you’re talking about here. The real stuff makes the fake stuff more credible.

Giuliani knew this which is why he was afraid of allowing anyone to determine if the contents were real.

I agree with that hypothesis it's very possible, he probably had concerns it was even if he hadn't done anything himself.
That doesn't mean the whole thing is useless, it just means you have to assume it potentially is and verify anything in it forensically or with an independent source. Something that everyone here seems to think is impossible.

Do you think the entire iCloud part of the data should be tossed out as well then?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm saying they're claiming that, correct. And they have paragraphs after paragraph of interactions of where he was obviously not in charge if their testimony is truthful. It isn't just one instance, it seemed to be a semi regular occurrence. There's enough details in them it's hard for me to discount it all as BS. If i feel like it later I'll dig more out, but it's unlikely. I'm kind of tired of being the only one who's apparently read it, or at least read part of it here and trying to discuss anything about it.

So to be clear you think the likely answer here is that a Trump appointee is risking prison to protect Joe Biden’s son.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree with that, he probably had concerns it was even if he hadn't done anything himself.

Do you think the entire iCloud part of the data should be tossed out as well then?

You’re moving the goalposts. Do you agree that ‘the left’ did not say the entirety was disinformation? I think the record clearly and correctly shows the left said what was presented couldn’t be trusted.

 

[cmcartman]

So to be clear you think the likely answer here is that a Trump appointee is risking prison to protect Joe Biden’s son.

I think it's possible. You think defending the testimony of a Trump appointee has worked out well for others lol? From their testimony I believe it more than the Trump appointee and Garland's. They made short blanket statements and the whistleblowers have detailed accounts that differ. We're obviously not going to see who is or isn't telling the truth unless more is investigated here.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it's possible. You think defending the testimony of a Trump appointee has worked out well for others lol? From their testimony I believe it more than the Trump appointee and Garland's. They made short blanket statements and the whistleblowers have detailed accounts that differ. We're obviously not going to see who is or isn't telling the truth unless more is investigated here.

Anything is possible, I just think it’s very unlikely and the testimony of people with no knowledge of the situation doesn’t change it.

 

[cmcartman]

You’re moving the goalposts. Do you agree that ‘the left’ did not say the entirety was disinformation? I think the record clearly and correctly shows the left said what was presented couldn’t be trusted.

They definitely stated early on it was not his. Then they changed to well it's probably full of disinformation, inferring that nothing usefull from it can be obtained when that's not entirely true, especially when combined with the iCloud data.

You still didn't answer my question about that either.

 

[fskimospy]

They definitely stated early on it was not his. Then they changed to well it's probably full of disinformation, inferring that nothing usefull from it can be obtained when that's not entirely true, especially when combined with the iCloud data.

You still didn't answer my question about that either.

The article you posted talking about the ‘51 intel officials’ explicitly stated they did not think all the contents were fake.

You claimed ‘the left’ said all the contents were fake. That was a false claim, agree?

 

[cmcartman]

Anything is possible, I just think it’s very unlikely and the testimony of people with no knowledge of the situation doesn’t change it.

They had knowledge of what he was telling them. "We can't do this because this other DoJ person won't, etc... Garland and he both claimed he had full autonomy (paraphrased from memory) the whistleblowers claim otherwise.

 

[fskimospy]

They had knowledge of what he was telling them. "We can't do this because this other DoJ person won't, etc... Garland and he both claimed he had full autonomy (paraphrased from memory) the whistleblowers claim otherwise.

So again, back to a Trump appointee lying to congress to protect Hunter Biden, based on statements from people who have zero knowledge of the actual workings of the office.

You are desperately wishcasting.

 

[cmcartman]

The article you posted talking about the ‘51 intel officials’ explicitly stated they did not think all the contents were fake.

You claimed ‘the left’ said all the contents were fake. That was a false claim, agree?

The left is a pretty broad term, so there have definitely been many on the left claiming the entire contents were fake especially early on. I do agree there have been both though, and no, I'm not going to say that article claims what it obviously doesn't and don't know which you referring to since I have linked at least half a dozen of them.

 

[fskimospy]

@cmcartman i genuinely appreciate our discussions here and you’re totally right that some people here are dicks to you without reason. I do think you’re buying into a right wing fantasy here though.

 

[cmcartman]

So again, back to a Trump appointee lying to congress to protect Hunter Biden, based on statements from people who have zero knowledge of the actual workings of the office.

You are desperately wishcasting.

You still didn't answer my question. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[fskimospy]

You still didn't answer my question. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

Sorry, you mean your question about iCloud data? I have no opinion about that.

 

[akugami]

Because he's the current DNI

Lol, no I literally had to google search that one and it was the first I happened to find. I assumed there wouldn't be any funny business with the story I remembered about it and I posted it. It wasn't the one I was thinking of.

To be fair I agree that article is crap actually reading through it. It doesn't actually say anything while babbling on.

This is a little better source and I think the one I read at the time. Seems to be based on a report from the House. I assume all this was posted earlier in this thread but I haven't been following it so I can't say for sure. Wasn't intending to talk about anything more than the whistleblowers testimony released yesterday because it hadn't been posted here.

Republicans say Biden campaign exploited former intel officials to discredit Hunter Biden laptop allegations

Just before the last 2020 presidential debate, 51 of the former officials signed a letter saying the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop had the "earmarks" of a Russian operation.

www.cbsnews.com

I assume this is what it's based off. And what I think is suspicious.

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 Hunte

judiciary.house.gov

"In his transcribed interview, Morell testified that on or around October 17, 2020 you reached out to him to discuss the Hunter Biden laptop story," they wrote. Blinken, at the time, was a senior adviser to the Biden campaign.

"According to Morell, although your outreach was couched as simply gathering Morell's reaction to the Post story, it set in motion the events that led to the issuance of the public statement," they wrote.

Morell testified that the Biden campaign "helped to strategize about the public release of the statement."

"Morell further explained that one of his two goals in releasing the statement was to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist him in winning the election," Jordan and Turner wrote.

Morell testified: "There were two intents. One intent was to share our concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue; and, two, 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.




Behind paywalls so I haven't read them. But they're all based on the same report I'm assuming.

Officials Who Cast Doubt on Hunter Biden Laptop Face Questions (Published 2023)

Dozens of former intelligence officials signed a letter discounting the laptop’s contents. Republicans say the missive was part of a Biden campaign operation.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Joe Biden and the 51 Spies of 2020

We’re now learning that his campaign helped gin up the disinformation about Hunter’s laptop.

www.wsj.com

I'll bite.

Apologies to everyone for the very long post, which I try to avoid whenever possible. I didn't want to respond to cmcartman's posts. But it was just getting to be too much.

CBS news article, lot of conjecture, no proof of tampering by Joe Biden. Lot of GOP bitching about lack of cooperation. You know, the same political leaders like Gym Jordan who decided to ignore a subpoena from Congress, and was referred to the House Ethics Committee complaint. The same committee the GQP then dismantled when they were in charge, but that's getting ahead of ourselves. No Biden conspiracy proven.

House.gove article. It's just reporting actions by the House, so no spin either way. The gist of it is, Gym Jordan thinks he's a genius and has a smoking gun, but has nada. Michael Morell last served the Director of the CIA in 2013. He's now a private citizen. I'd doubt he had direct knowledge into any investigation on the Hunter laptop at that point. A lot of conjecture on the part of the GQP, especially from Gym Jordan. No actual proof of any misconduct on Joe Biden's part or Morell's part. I mean, who would have thought that when running for office, you'd want to spin potentially negative news in a positive light? And that you'd enlist people you worked with to help you couch a response? There was no proof, or even a hint, of a coverup. And spinning is not outright lying like what Trump does. No Biden conspiracy proven.

NY Times article. So James Clapper Jr served as a high level intelligence officer, until January of 2017. But again, former intelligence official. As the article states, the GQP had him in for a closed door questioning, over his public letter, which was written in 2020, well after he left his post as an intelligence officer. Clapper expressed doubt about the Hunter laptop, and believed it to be part of Russian propoganda. That is Clapper's right as a private citizen to offer such analysis. You can disagree with the analysis. That is your right. But as everyone knows, Russians have aided Trump in political campaigns. That is a FACT. Clapper's conclusion that this could be more aid by Russians to Trump is grounded in FACT. Here is something that cannot be proven as fact even now, that Hunter's laptop contains some sort of smoking gun proving Joe Biden did something illegal. Whatever it proves about Hunter, that's on Hunter. No Biden conspiracy proven.

WSJ article. This is an opinion piece. I could call Trump Jr a gay father humper in an opinion piece and wouldn't need to prove any of my words. Starts off with the same premise about somehow there was some sort of conspiracy by Blinken, who was Biden's presidential campaign manager, with Michael Morell, a private citizen, to somehow trick the American public. As per previous thoughts, there is a difference between positive spin, and outright conspiracy. Any conspiracy is conjecture. Even the GQP who had access to the damn laptop has proven nothing other than it contains illicit drug use by Hunter, and his dick picts. I'm sure the GQP are jealous that Hunter has a bigger penis than any of them. Especially Trump. We know Trump has small hands. We're also fairly certain Trump has penis envy. No Biden conspiracy proven.


So here are my thoughts. Hunter Biden is a flawed man. Doesn't make him an evil man. Doesn't mean jack shit because he's a private citizen, even if his father holds high political office. And Joe Biden is not the only president, ex or otherwise, with a flawed drug addicted son (hi Trump Jr).

@cmcartman, if you want to debate in an intelligent fashion, there are plenty who would trade ideas with you. However, from all of your posts, it's very clear that's not what you're after. You show all the signs and actions of a right wing nutjob.

You believe that writing a lot of words somehow make your words more true. You ignore facts when it inconveniences your flawed argument. You like to "both sides" the argument when the mountain of facts against your conspiracy nutjob theories are too much for you to ignore. While you couch your personal attacks better than some other right wingers here, one of your arguments is still questioning the thinking abilities of anyone who debates you on facts. Which is funny considering how many facts you choose to ignore. Hell, you won't even fucking admit a damned armed insurrection (Jan 6) is bad.

 

[akugami]

So to be clear you think the likely answer here is that a Trump appointee is risking prison to protect Joe Biden’s son.

I don't know who is protecting Biden's son, but the answer is always aliens. Those damn little green men. They got to be involved somehow.

It's as factual an answer as any @cmcartman has given.

 

[cmcartman]

CBS news article, lot of conjecture, no proof of tampering by Joe Biden. Lot of GOP bitching about lack of cooperation. You know, the same political leaders like Gym Jordan who decided to ignore a subpoena from Congress, and was referred to the House Ethics Committee complaint. The same committee the GQP then dismantled when they were in charge, but that's getting ahead of ourselves. No Biden conspiracy proven.

I don't know if Joe Biden told them to go easy on his son. I think that potentially a DA for the state of Delaware decided he didn't want to rock the boat in his own state, Trump appointee or not. Note, this is just an opinion and I have no more proof than the he said she said argument. There are memo's and recordings in the whistleblowers testimony that seem to support everything they've said though. The issue is that he didn't really seem to need to tell them to go easy. It was pretty clear that even pursuing the investigation was going to be risky because of who he was. I guess I just think that's not how things should be.

House.gove article. It's just reporting actions by the House, so no spin either way. The gist of it is, Gym Jordan thinks he's a genius and has a smoking gun, but has nada. Michael Morell last served the Director of the CIA in 2013. He's now a private citizen. I'd doubt he had direct knowledge into any investigation on the Hunter laptop at that point. A lot of conjecture on the part of the GQP, especially from Gym Jordan. No actual proof of any misconduct on Joe Biden's part or Morell's part. I mean, who would have thought that when running for office, you'd want to spin potentially negative news in a positive light? And that you'd enlist people you worked with to help you couch a response? There was no proof, or even a hint, of a coverup. And spinning is not outright lying like what Trump does. No Biden conspiracy proven.

If they had no direct knowledge of the investigation then why did the former national security officials feel it was necessary to (paraphrased) say the laptop was probably just full of disinformation? They tried to downplay it when they didn't know if it was or was not disinformation according to your own interpretation. My own dissatisfaction there was honestly mostly with the former national security officials not at Biden or his campaign. I should have done a better job explaining that. I feel like they have obligations to be more truthful then a statement like that which is only relying on their former positions to actually mean anything at all. At the same time though part of it was on the Biden campaign and how it knew the facts and that there was no actual disinformation. Then there was Blinken using Biden's clout to convince them to do it. Hunter knew exactly what was on the laptop and there is more outright lying then "spinning" going on in my opinion. Maybe I expect a presidential candidate to not have to "spin" bullshit to have a bunch of ex appointed officials bend the truth like that. I know it's a lot to ask these days.

For the record there's an exhibit 6 in the transcript which basically details the laptop, hard drive, and external hard drive timeline and a discussion after that. pg 119-127 of the pdf

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Whistleblower-1-Transcript_Redacted.pdf

It detailed the forensic exam of the drive too and this is the last part of the discussion.

"So, I mean, the whole discussion was about can we rely on this information on the laptop, is it Hunter Biden's? And their opinion was, it was, and it was not manipulated in any way. Q It was reliable evidence ? A That is correct."

So basically the IRS agent was led to believe the FBI had gone over the drive and had not found any reason to believe it was not completely authentic. And that Hunter Biden or his lawyers never once argued that data from the laptop was "disinformation" or stated it was not his.
That's a pretty stark contrast from that letter above from the former National Security officials. It was why John Ratcliffe said the laptop was not Russian Disinformation, he knew the truth.
But no none of that's a crime, definitely not prosecutable in any way I could think of. Just a good example of our current president, his campaign, and his family. One more reason for me to be "in the middle".

NY Times article. So James Clapper Jr served as a high level intelligence officer, until January of 2017. But again, former intelligence official. As the article states, the GQP had him in for a closed door questioning, over his public letter, which was written in 2020, well after he left his post as an intelligence officer. Clapper expressed doubt about the Hunter laptop, and believed it to be part of Russian propoganda. That is Clapper's right as a private citizen to offer such analysis. You can disagree with the analysis. That is your right. But as everyone knows, Russians have aided Trump in political campaigns. That is a FACT. Clapper's conclusion that this could be more aid by Russians to Trump is grounded in FACT. Here is something that cannot be proven as fact even now, that Hunter's laptop contains some sort of smoking gun proving Joe Biden did something illegal. Whatever it proves about Hunter, that's on Hunter. No Biden conspiracy proven.

Like I said when I posted them I didn't read them because of paywalls. But the fact Clapper said those things isn't a fact proving anything either. The whole argument that they've done it once so this time it must be as well get's old. My whole argument here is that Hunter should actually be treated like a typical citizen. I haven't seen or inferred there's been any smoking gun about Joe Biden. The Burisma stuff I think it's possible he was, but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that Joe knew anything and I stated earlier that the IRS agents seemed to think Hunter was using him unknowingly.

WSJ article. This is an opinion piece. I could call Trump Jr a gay father humper in an opinion piece and wouldn't need to prove any of my words. Starts off with the same premise about somehow there was some sort of conspiracy by Blinken, who was Biden's presidential campaign manager, with Michael Morell, a private citizen, to somehow trick the American public. As per previous thoughts, there is a difference between positive spin, and outright conspiracy. Any conspiracy is conjecture. Even the GQP who had access to the damn laptop has proven nothing other than it contains illicit drug use by Hunter, and his dick picts. I'm sure the GQP are jealous that Hunter has a bigger penis than any of them. Especially Trump. We know Trump has small hands. We're also fairly certain Trump has penis envy. No Biden conspiracy proven.

I mentioned I hadn't had a chance to read them because of paywalls. I didn't expect smoking guns and said it was likely more of the same from that report. I only added them because they were from legitimate sites and they might possibly have had more information. If I linked something from the NY Post I could expect it to be completely ignored because of where it came from for instance.

So here are my thoughts. Hunter Biden is a flawed man. Doesn't make him an evil man. Doesn't mean jack shit because he's a private citizen, even if his father holds high political office. And Joe Biden is not the only president, ex or otherwise, with a flawed drug addicted son (hi Trump Jr).

Should he be treated differently than any other normal citizen? Because in my eyes he was. Do I think the whole issue has been overblown because of who his father is, yes. The right wouldn't have gone digging if he wasn't. That doesn't mean it should have been ignored either. And I feel the same way as the whistleblowers after I read through most of the transcripts. He's getting off lighter than he should have and lighter than he would have if he was you or me.

@cmcartman, if you want to debate in an intelligent fashion, there are plenty who would trade ideas with you. However, from all of your posts, it's very clear that's not what you're after. You show all the signs and actions of a right wing nutjob.

You believe that writing a lot of words somehow make your words more true. You ignore facts when it inconveniences your flawed argument. You like to "both sides" the argument when the mountain of facts against your conspiracy nutjob theories are too much for you to ignore. While you couch your personal attacks better than some other right wingers here, one of your arguments is still questioning the thinking abilities of anyone who debates you on facts. Which is funny considering how many facts you choose to ignore. Hell, you won't even fucking admit a damned armed insurrection (Jan 6) is bad.

When you're the only one with an opposing viewpoint attempting to say anything you're going to end up writing more words than any of the other 30 posters. When I tried to limit my conversations there were multiple people bitching that I didn't reply to whatever question they'd ask, many of which had nothing to do with the topic. Half of them think it's one big "got ya" game. There were several that ignored or mispresented facts or plain didn't know what they were talking about and I don't see you bothering to "correct" them. And yes, I did attempt to be civil with my comments while several of them did not and inferred I was racist and a homophobe on several occasions. You are inferring I'm a "right wing nut job." and then posted a meme making fun of me in the next post. Should I say you seem like a snowflake and that would be ok with you? ( I don't think that to be fair). About half of the posts felt like "attacks" without any debate. I don't see you chiding them about it though. And this whole idea that must admit some random "fact" that isn't on topic is bad or you're ignoring facts is complete bullshit as well. For the record, so I can post here apparently. I think January 6th was bad. I'm sure not as bad as you do but that's a lot more to do with my definition of armed. Legally there were dozens of idiots that brought clubs and other deadly weapons so they were armed. Had it been what I would call armed it would been orders of magnitude worse likely. The Wagner/Russian insurrection yesterday was armed. There's a huge difference there. I'm sure this will get more comments, but at this point I don't care. My opinions are my opinions.

 

[eelw]

If they had no direct knowledge of the investigation then why did the former national security officials feel it was necessary to (paraphrased) say the laptop was probably just full of disinformation? They tried to downplay it when they didn't know if it was or was not disinformation according to your own interpretation.

.

Because of each of their decades of experience with Russia. And well duh 2016 and the blatant Russian interference. You’re so quick to say this whiteblower has a whole 10 years of experience!!!! He hasn’t shown any proof and absolutely no one else has corroborated his “story”. So the majority of us trust these former intelligence agents than this one guy.

Yes you’re entitled to your opinion. But we’re entitled to ours and judging you as a RWNJ spewing PROVEN fake facts.

 

[cmcartman]

Because of each of their decades of experience with Russia. And well duh 2016 and the blatant Russian interference. You’re so quick to say this whiteblower has a whole 10 years of experience!!!! He hasn’t shown any proof and absolutely no one else has corroborated his “story”. So the majority of us trust these former intelligence agents than this one guy.

Yes you’re entitled to your opinion. But we’re entitled to ours and judging you as a RWNJ spewing PROVEN fake facts.

I know reading is hard. But there were two whistleblowers and I said they both had at least 10 years because digging through it is tedious to get the actual total. And the page I originally posted was about how Hunter Biden was essentially not prosecuted for most of his crimes. That the investigation was slow walked and then stonewalled. And that's exactly what they said in the 300+ pages of testimony. With multiple instances where Weiss wasn't able to do anything without asking his superiors in DC or DA's in other states. Which is the opposite that his letter states.

All that other crap was mostly drug up because everyone here is a broken record and felt they needed to ask 100 questions that weren't about that article.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I know reading is hard. But there were two whistleblowers and I said they both had at least 10 years because digging through it is tedious to get the actual total. And the page I originally posted was about how Hunter Biden was essentially not prosecuted for most of his crimes. That the investigation was slow walked and then stonewalled. And that's exactly what they said in the 300+ pages of testimony. With multiple instances where Weiss wasn't able to do anything without asking his superiors in DC or DA's in other states. Which is the opposite that his letter states.

All that other crap was mostly drug up because everyone here is a broken record and felt they needed to ask 100 questions that weren't about that article.

I assumed you were being a condescending dick with that first statement, but in a weird twist of apparent honesty you're just admitting you struggled with it? At least based on you admitting you just made shit up because you couldn't be bothered to get basic fucking facts sorted, as you did with the very next sentence. That's exactly what they said yet you haven't been able to support that with any actual evidence other than you apparently know jack shit about this stuff and so you're taking lack of evidence as evidence of conspiracy to protect Hunter Biden?

Gee, I can't fathom why people won't partake in your bad faith arguments, and no wonder you're desperate to defend such behavior on the part of Republican operatives. Apparently your brain operates in a similar manner, which is to say, completely fucked, where you think just making shit up when you could actually get specific facts, is totally a-ok.

Goddamn you really are a special kind of piece of shit. Unfortunately that special kind of piece of shit is far too common these days.

 

[akugami]

@cmcartman


What those associated with Biden, such as Morell or Blinken has done is express doubt about the validity of any evidence that Joe Biden has done anything improper. They actually did so with sound reasoning and logic, such as that used in an actual court of law. There are rules and procedures which dictate if evidence is admissable because of possible tampering. While someone like Morell may not have direct knowledge of the contents of the laptop, he can speculate and give his opinion off of past collusion between Trump and the Russians, which is proven fact. He can speculate that certain evidence is inadmissable. Which the laptop most certainly is most certainly considered "tampered" at this point. Here is the most damning part, even if the evidence is considered flawed, there is zero proof of any conspiracy on the part of Joe Biden. Otherwise, flawed or not, it would have already been used in an impeachment by the GQP.

What you're doing is agreeing with GQP speculation. That's your right. But the fact is, and this is fact, none of that speculation has been proven to have any basis in fact. None. Not even any tangential evidence. Yet you want everyone to treat it as fact.

In conclusion, you blindly believe the words of Jim Jordan, a pedophile protector who flouted the law, and makes shit up as he goes in congressional committees he heads.

You believe Trump, who is a known liar. A habitual liar and cheater. A person proven to have colluded with Russians. A person who loves communist dictators. A proven sexual predator.

From your own words, and this is damned egregious, you speculate off an article you didn't even read. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? You believe in Joe Biden's guilt so much that you don't bother to even look at evidence. From your own words, that's you. I actually went and read those articles. They proved none of what you stated.

I'm done responding to you, because you have zero credibility. You can stay in the world of Maga Make Belief and speculate to your hearts content. But don't expect most here to scarf up whatever nonsense you choose to serve up.

 

[darkswordsman17]

@cmcartman


What those associated with Biden, such as Morell or Blinken has done is express doubt about the validity of any evidence that Joe Biden has done anything improper. They actually did so with sound reasoning and logic, such as that used in an actual court of law. There are rules and procedures which dictate if evidence is admissable because of possible tampering. While someone like Morell may not have direct knowledge of the contents of the laptop, he can speculate and give his opinion off of past collusion between Trump and the Russians, which is proven fact. He can speculate that certain evidence is inadmissable. Which the laptop most certainly is most certainly considered "tampered" at this point. Here is the most damning part, even if the evidence is considered flawed, there is zero proof of any conspiracy on the part of Joe Biden. Otherwise, flawed or not, it would have already been used in an impeachment by the GQP.

What you're doing is agreeing with GQP speculation. That's your right. But the fact is, and this is fact, none of that speculation has been proven to have any basis in fact. None. Not even any tangential evidence. Yet you want everyone to treat it as fact.

In conclusion, you blindly believe the words of Jim Jordan, a pedophile protector who flouted the law, and makes shit up as he goes in congressional committees he heads.

You believe Trump, who is a known liar. A habitual liar and cheater. A person proven to have colluded with Russians. A person who loves communist dictators. A proven sexual predator.

From your own words, and this is damned egregious, you speculate off an article you didn't even read. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? You believe in Joe Biden's guilt so much that you don't bother to even look at evidence. From your own words, that's you. I actually went and read those articles. They proved none of what you stated.

I'm done responding to you, because you have zero credibility. You can stay in the world of Maga Make Belief and speculate to your hearts content. But don't expect most here to scarf up whatever nonsense you choose to serve up.

Next up, he didn't actually say Joe was guilty, just its super suspicious and he's just asking questions!

What a clownfucking dipshit. I'm calling it, this is a returned banned member. I forget his username (something noah?), but acted the exact same way. Walls of nonsense where he'd admit he didn't even read the shit he was using as evidence (and often typically it would refute whatever claim the dumbfuck was making) and just made shit up based on his personal feelings, and when called out on it would then just try to spiral everything into a nonsense mountain where he'd just put so much nonsense out and then whine that people were being mean/unfair to for not debating his nonsense, despite his own self-admitted dishonesty.

 

[cmcartman]

@cmcartman


What those associated with Biden, such as Morell or Blinken has done is express doubt about the validity of any evidence that Joe Biden has done anything improper. They actually did so with sound reasoning and logic, such as that used in an actual court of law. There are rules and procedures which dictate if evidence is admissable because of possible tampering. While someone like Morell may not have direct knowledge of the contents of the laptop, he can speculate and give his opinion off of past collusion between Trump and the Russians, which is proven fact. He can speculate that certain evidence is inadmissable. Which the laptop most certainly is most certainly considered "tampered" at this point. Here is the most damning part, even if the evidence is considered flawed, there is zero proof of any conspiracy on the part of Joe Biden. Otherwise, flawed or not, it would have already been used in an impeachment by the GQP.

When that logic with no proof is used as a basic to put "disinformation" stickers on anything related to it and a poll afterwards says that it affected the actual vote I tend to take it seriously.

What you're doing is agreeing with GQP speculation. That's your right. But the fact is, and this is fact, none of that speculation has been proven to have any basis in fact. None. Not even any tangential evidence. Yet you want everyone to treat it as fact.

I stated every time that it's my opinion. It's definitely a FACT that the whistleblowers wrote it, under penalty of perjury.

In conclusion, you blindly believe the words of Jim Jordan, a pedophile protector who flouted the law, and makes shit up as he goes in congressional committees he heads.

He didn't write those words. THE WHISTLEBLOWERS did. They did under penalty of perjury. If you think they're lying that's your decision to make but stop putting more adding more BS that I didn't say.

You believe Trump, who is a known liar. A habitual liar and cheater. A person proven to have colluded with Russians. A person who loves communist dictators. A proven sexual predator.

Where have I said I believe Trump? If you're going to put words in my mouth prove it. I think he's a narcissistic habitual lying asshole. Doesn't mean that every single thing you don't agree with is bullshit thought. I hate having to decide that I don't want to vote for either of these people and then have someone like you tell me it's my fault he did all that shit because I didn't vote against him and keep him out of office. Maybe bring a candidate that's worth voting for.

From your own words, and this is damned egregious, you speculate off an article you didn't even read. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? You believe in Joe Biden's guilt so much that you don't bother to even look at evidence. From your own words, that's you. I actually went and read those articles. They proved none of what you stated.

I specifically said in the post that I didn't read them. They were the only 2 that I haven't. You didn't read that and then blame me for your inability to read. You keep bringing Joe Biden into this and I keep telling Hunter and the treatment he's gotten is my big complaint. More words in my mouth that you're just making assumptions about.

I'm done responding to you, because you have zero credibility. You can stay in the world of Maga Make Belief and speculate to your hearts content. But don't expect most here to scarf up whatever nonsense you choose to serve up.

You're the one that hasn't read half of what I said and added lots of nonsense claiming I said things I didn't so I don't really see that as a loss.

 

[eelw]

He didn't write those words. THE WHISTLEBLOWERS did. They did under penalty of perjury. If you think they're lying that's your decision to make but stop putting more adding more BS that I didn't say.

Pfft penalty of perjury under a R controlled house means nothing. All the DOJ lawyers that will disbarred if they falsified the court documents they filed holds more credibility

 

[cmcartman]

Next up, he didn't actually say Joe was guilty, just its super suspicious and he's just asking questions!

What a clownfucking dipshit. I'm calling it, this is a returned banned member. I forget his username (something noah?), but acted the exact same way. Walls of nonsense where he'd admit he didn't even read the shit he was using as evidence (and often typically it would refute whatever claim the dumbfuck was making) and just made shit up based on his personal feelings, and when called out on it would then just try to spiral everything into a nonsense mountain where he'd just put so much nonsense out and then whine that people were being mean/unfair to for not debating his nonsense, despite his own self-admitted dishonesty.

No, just stopped reading or posting here years ago when it started sliding more and more into the echo chamber that lashes out at any view they don't want to hear or agree with. Reading it reminds me when I read about actual Trumpers and how they continue to ignore what they don't like in the same ways.

There was literally 2 articles I posted and specifically said I think this is based off the same report but I can't read them because of paywalls. If you're talking about the 400 pages of transcripts I've read most of them. There is no ability to search them and cutting and pasting arguments ends up with huge hard to read paragraphs.

He didn't actually read what I said and you're just regurgitating what he said, nice.