Normal people don't care about Hunter Biden or what crimes he committed.
That wasnt directed at you specifically.I was actually distracted by the Russia story as well and normally don't have the free time to spend on here as well. And like I said before I don't follow Rogan, I've probably seen/heard less than a full hour of any of his video's/podcasts. I do agree about the silo's, partly why I occasionally still skim this forum though it's gotten rarer and rarer as it seems to be a silo of it's own IMHO. There used to seem to be real discussion here when I frequented it in the early and mid 2000's. Now it's a lot of agreeing with everyone else. I see the same thing on more conservative forums as well so It's not just here.
I try to do that. It's still very open on this particular subject. It's not something I've even really followed since the election and even then I didn't pay it much attention. I had long before decided I wasn't voting for Trump either way and already didn't care for the prospect of Biden either. The biggest takeaway from me was how initially it wasn't his according to the Biden camp. Then well it's disinformation. And now a couple years later it seems there is evidence showing that it was his and there is zero proof of disinformation. I get that's just normal politics but the way they spread the "disinformation" idea and the way the FBI seems to believe nothing was done to the data don't make me feel warm and fuzzy. That reading through the evidence they seemed to have on Hunter it seems like he did get wrist slaps. There's not enough to definitely prove anything yet and since they let it take so long Hunter isn't going to get charged for any of the potential tax law violations. But like I said in the first post mentioning this story. Interesting if this is true and where it goes.
Most of my "berating" and frustration has been because no one has read the transcripts yet. They're experts on the subject and know everything about the case already even though this deals more with the FBI side than the Rudy NY Post attempt to through dirt at the Biden campaign. I should have added them to my initial post but at the time I hadn't even started reading through them so I just tossed the CBS story there. Many have ignored or twisted what I said. Made assumptions about me or repeatedly inferred things about me without zero proof and they want to act like they're acting perfectly rational as well. I've been bitched at because I didn't respond to a question even though I already had and explained that I was also paying a lot more attention the the Russian Wagner thing that started after I made the initial post. I also think that the while the idea "that i need to get that road rage under control is valid". You should try being the one person getting yelled at by dozens of others and see how you remain completely calm. How it's fine for me to be expected to answer every question I'm thrown at while there's no actual discussion in most cases. Just assertions that I'm an idiot for thinking anything that the group doesn't agree with. The one question I asked fskimospy he decided he had no opinion on. Several others have replied with responses with just more questions That's apparently how i should have responded as well.
I didn't take anything personally and I'm pretty thick skinned and I'm sure it seems like a cop out but there's no point in me bothering to attempt to discuss anything here or at least anything regarding this subject. It's not worth my time and I'm not going to change an opinion. I do appreciate not being yelled at by you and at least several others though.
Where did you point out anything in the transcript that had to do with the lap top? All you did was show exhibit 6 of the time line at the end of your post, with a link to the pdf stating the conversation took place after, on pages 119 to 127. Those pages have NOTHING to do with the timeline or the laptop, or anything at all about the lap top,, so you bet your ass I didn't read those pages. Now, the pages you should have directed me to, where pages 104 to 109 , not pages 119 to 127 as you indicated. Next time, before you make an accusation towards someone not reading the pages you pointed them to, you better damn well make sure you gave the correct information to begin with. I quoted a statement made by the whistleblower in my first post to you about the laptop to you from a news article. That quote indicated that Everything happened between November 2019, and December of 2019. So, according to your transcript, that wasn't accurate.. okay.. I will give you that.I don't have any idea why the FBI in Baltimore asked for the "device number" and then used that to conclude it was registered to Hunter instead of sending an agent. The "very blind" repairman seemed to be the shop owner. His son seems to be the one doing the work there doesn't seem to be much info on that and that's a guess. I'm not an expert in how the FBI operates. Maybe it was less manpower intensive to follow up on leads that way instead of sending agents to every single one. That would also explain the need to ask what was on it before making actual contact. I assume they also wanted to know if a warrant was needed or not and took a while deciding how to proceed.
You didn't even read the pages of the transcript I pointed out. This is literally the next line in the transcript
"Can you tell us about this document, who prepared it, and why?
A Yes, I prepared this document. It was to memorialize a meeting that we had with the prosecution team, plus the FBI CART team, which were the computer analysis team"
I'm not sure i see how the whistleblower's testimony indicates a different timeline than the one you said isn't in question. Since the whistleblower actually wrote it based on what he was told. Can you explain that to me and provide proof? It's getting old that no one here posts anything backing up a single statement yet expects me to verify word for word anything I post.
Also did you have any response to the logic I used in your previous questions? I assume if there was a gap in it you'd have mentioned that instead of starting a set of new questions.
At this point I'm not sure I'm going to bother anymore. It's not worth anyone's time. Everyone here decided a long time ago what the truth was and nothing will change that.
I said "pg 119-127 of the pdf" as you so well pointed about before we're all geeks here so I assumed you'd understand that. The exhibit pages aren't labeled so the pdf has more pages than the labeled testimony pages.Where did you point out anything in the transcript that had to do with the lap top? All you did was show exhibit 6 of the time line at the end of your post, with a link to the pdf stating the conversation took place after, on pages 119 to 127. Those pages have NOTHING to do with the timeline or the laptop, or anything at all about the lap top,, so you bet your ass I didn't read those pages. Now, the pages you should have directed me to, where pages 104 to 109 , not pages 119 to 127 as you indicated. Next time, before you make an accusation towards someone not reading the pages you pointed them to, you better damn well make sure you gave the correct information to begin with. I quoted a statement made by the whistleblower in my first post to you about the laptop to you from a news article. That quote indicated that Everything happened between November 2019, and December of 2019. So, according to your transcript, that wasn't accurate.. okay.. I will give you that.
At this point your rambling doesn't deserve much response other than to say the investigation was started before the laptop was found by whistleblower #2. The investigations were merged and large parts of it were based on tax records and other information, not necessarily the laptop. In investigations like that they work closely with other agencies so yeah it's based off what the FBI told him. I also don't think you have any idea what people might or might not make memos to themselves for in a complex investigation like that.I find it amusing that you are claiming you are using logic in any of your responses. Logic tells me this whole transcript is all based on a bullshit narrative (fiction), which includes the very testimony that is being given here. If you used a single ounce of logic, you would see it in the testimony and questions about the laptop's timeline and what it all means, as it's not based off of facts, but rather what one man, the whistleblower, says it is, from what he heard..(hear say, made up, who fucking knows) The narrative, the questions, the testimony are all based off of a timeline document that the whistleblower, who is claiming wrong doing, and testifying, created himself. One in which he claims, was a creation so he can memorize the meeting that he had with other people, of what those other people said.. I wondering how he had time to participate in a meeting and take such detailed notes? Why would he need to right down specifics, that he could obtain at anytime by making a phone call if needed? There is no logic behind his reasoning. Why would he need to memorize that meeting? The thing is, it's all based off of what an IRS agent claims, of how another agency, the FBI, handled the laptop, something he can only get from word of mouth, and has no first hand knowledge of. Why don't we have a legitimate timeline from the FBI? There has to be recorded documentation with dates and times of the handling of the laptop. Why hasn't that been summitted? Think about that for a moment. Try and actually use some logic that you claim you have.
So right now, this testimony about the laptop, is based on, what is equivalent to what my uncles, brother's wife said to me behind closed doors, that I wrote down to memorize or rather the whistleblower, no me. (it's so fucking twisted and bizarre, I have a hard time even wording it in a way that is understandable) And yet, you don't understand why most intelligent people don't consider this transcript to have any legitimacy as it's not based on proven factual information. It's all based on what he said, she said, they said.. fuck.. just thinking about it, and trying to make sense of the bullshit makes my head hurt. And the real kicker, the whole damn thing is a meaningless narrative drummed up by the right about a President's son in an effort to discredit the President, using "evidence" from a laptop that Trump's lawyer had his hands on.
Whistleblower #2 pg 159-160 of the pdf which is the same as it's numbered.Since Hunter Biden didn’t work for the government why did the story deserve more coverage??
Are you a fucking moron! Did yo not notice the fucking page numbers on the pdf pages you linked? Every page of the transcript, excluding the exhibits, as they are not part of the transcript, has a page number on it. The exhibits where only included to add clarity to the transcripts. They are not part of the transcript. Every fucking person on earth goes by the page number listed on the pages, not what the PDF reader shows as the page number, because the page number on the pages are the legitimate page numbers. So don't fucking act like you didn't have your head up your ass when you told me to read pages 119 to 127.I said "pg 119-127 of the pdf" as you so well pointed about before we're all geeks here so I assumed you'd understand that. The exhibit pages aren't labeled so the pdf has more pages than the labeled testimony pages.
You paraphrased what looked like a quoted statement in the NY Post. The statement isn't in the testimony so I think they combined part of exhibit 6 and made it a quote. It's a lot more apparent when you see the the opening statement contrasted again a couple paragraphs down with added context.
The FBI “verified” the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop in November 2019 and a federal computer expert assessed...
vs
In October 2019, the FBI became aware that a repair shop had a laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden and that the laptop might contain evidence of a crime. The FBI verified its authenticity in November of 2019 by matching the device number against Hunter Biden’s Apple iCloud ID,
So you're telling me the NY Post making a confusing statement that was about FBI authenticating it was his laptop because of the Apple iCloud ID is inferring the transcript is wrong?
Them f'ing up the article based off the transcript doesn't invalid the timeline in the transcript
At this point your rambling doesn't deserve much response other than to say the investigation was started before the laptop was found by whistleblower #2. The investigations were merged and large parts of it were based on tax records and other information, not necessarily the laptop. In investigations like that they work closely with other agencies so yeah it's based off what the FBI told him. I also don't think you have any idea what people might or might not make memos to themselves for in a complex investigation like that.
Whistleblower #2 pg 159-160 of the pdf which is the same as it's numbered.
A Yeah. So when we were going through all these issues, we actually sat down after a meeting -- when I say "we," it's me, Gary Shapley, and my co-case agent, Christine Puglisi. And we wanted to -- at that time -- so this might have been 1 or 2 years ago. I don't recall the time. I'm sure if we go back, we can figure it out. It probably was about a year ago. But we wanted to get down on paper so that we knew at the time all the problems that we were dealing with. And we have a list of -- what is it -- seven different areas, and they include lack of transparency, outside the normal course of an investigation, recurring unjustified delays, enforcement actions, misrepresentation of investigator's requested actions, investigator discussions related to the conduct of prosecutors. And defense counsel bullying and threats. This is actually in here. Prosecutors told investigators on a call on August 12th,2022, that Defense Attorney Chris Clark threatened them, stating that their careers would be ruined if they brought various charges against Hunter. They also said -- which I think that this is important, too -- in several other conversations, prosecutors told investigators that defense counsel requested meetings with high-ranking DOJ officials before any charging decisions were made.
Q And at the time that Chris Clark made those statements, he was representing Hunter Biden. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q And Hunter Biden's father was the President of the United States. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q And the people that he made that statement to were employees of the Justice Department. Is that correct?
A Yes. And a lot of these things, I think we've already gone over in detail. I'm going to look through here and see if there's anything that stands out that is important to you guys.
At the risk of feeding the troll since you don't know anything about the case and continue to add in your random facts and "innocent" questions. This is the first time any information has come out, it's a relatively new case when it comes to the whistleblowing complaints. Both sides were allowed to ask both whistleblowers questions.All this so called claimed testimony I don’t recall seeing in a public hearing where it would be subject to cross.
You're confusing this with another case.Is this one of the whistleblowers they lost?
The IRS investigators saw none AFIAK. At the same time they definitely felt they weren't getting access to all of the information from the laptop. At least one mentioned that the working conclusion (paraphrased) seemed to be that Biden didn't know anything about Hunter's attemp to use his name as leverage.What evidence was found implicating Joe Biden of any crimes or bribery?
Probably considering how difficult the case was made by interference and lack of help from DoJ and above in multiple cases over multiple years. The investigation started in secret from before the laptop was found until the day after the transition team starting giving info to the Biden administration. The next day Hunter's lawyer called wanting to talk about his tax returns. Tons of reasons though, implications that Weiss and Garland made statements that didn't appear to be true according to the whistleblowers. Even before he became a candidate, just by virtue of being Biden's son there seemed to be discouragement in even trying to start it with his dad being such a powerful figure in Delaware after 40 years in politics. Once Biden became the nominee and then especially once he was president elect the investigation started to get stonewalled in multiple ways. They were ready to bring charges before the election outside of the normal window ahead of it but the DoJ didn't seem to want to proceed even though it was always bounced back as being a good case. Once it started becoming necessary for AUSA's for DC and California to push the cases forward after the election there was no cooperation. Both new Biden nominees weren't going to charge based on the referrals from Weiss and the IRS investigators so there was no way for the bigger charges to be brought. Weiss couldn't because he was not afforded special counsel status. This goes completely against Garland's testimony. I will say other than the letter Weiss made saying he had full authority (paraphrased) to bring the cases he was their go to man and seemed to help in every way he could according the their testimony. There's a ton more but that's a brief explanation without mentioning all the issues in the case.Once more why should we care about someone who absent what I just stated never worked for the government?
I noticed them and realized they weren't useful If I wanted you to read the exhibits as well since they weren't numbered. I would have said those pages of the TRANSCRIPT not the PDF or I would had apologized if I hadn't. But I did say pdf. I'm sorry I think it's easier to just type in those numbers instead of scrolling through it like a monkey. Since the exhibits don't have pages it would have to be "well it's after 104 and before whatever", kind of useless when I wanted you to specifically see the exhibit.Are you a fucking moron! Did yo not notice the fucking page numbers on the pdf pages you linked? Every page of the transcript, excluding the exhibits, as they are not part of the transcript, has a page number on it. The exhibits where only included to add clarity to the transcripts. They are not part of the transcript. Every fucking person on earth goes by the page number listed on the pages, not what the PDF reader shows as the page number, because the page number on the pages are the legitimate page numbers. So don't fucking act like you didn't have your head up your ass when you told me to read pages 119 to 127.
I'm done arguing that. There were two statements in that which about the same thing like I showed you in that story. You picked one and ran with it. The second explained what they meant which to be fair was completely confusing. The story was written on the testimony/exhibits not any statements, you don't seem to understand that. They used quotes incorrectly and confused authenticating it was his laptop with verified the data because well they're morons I suppose. They only thing "verified" was the number off the alleged laptop at that time since they hadn't seen it matched Hunter Biden's iCloud account. I explained this and you're still back here. When you read the memo he made there is a confusing line from exhibit 6 again line 12 b that says simply "Verifications of Device" 12a is the line referring to the cross check of the number. The memo timeline clearly indicates no checking of the data occurred until later.Also, do you have a fucking reading problem? First of all, I directly quoted the statement from the New York post in my first repone to you about the lap top, I didn't fucking paraphrase a damn thing. In which the New York Post, from my understanding quoted from his testimony, as it was in quotes and stated by the whistleblower. Go back and re-read that post (#1004) you fucking moron. then read what I said to you in my last post, where I agreed the transcript shows that statement not to be accurate in the way it appears.. yet here you are trying to argue about it more.
Yep, this is an IRS whistleblower case that is being talked about, both whistleblowers are IRS agents. Whistleblower #2 pg 17 of both the transcript/pdf "I started this investigation in November of 2018 after reviewing bank reports related to another case I was working on a social media company. Those bank reports identified Hunter Biden as paying prostitutes related to a potential prostitution ring" A separate investigation was started when the laptop info was sent from the FBI to the IRS. They were merged in early 2019.What? the congressional Probe/investigation into Hunter Biden was started before the lap top was found? You are confusing the IRS/FBI investigations with the House Probe. The transcript you think is the holy grail, is about the House Probe, you dumbass! Why the fuck would I be talking about anything else, as the FBI/IRS investigations have nothing to do with going after Joe Biden. So yes, my "rambling" is very relevant. I suspect it's over your head because you don't have the first fucking clue to what I am pointing out. But of course, you are confused, so it's expected.. I guess.
Yes that's a good summary if you ignore the related aspect that I did bring up about how the laptop story was handled and the pressure there. I'm not even sure it was from "the top". But definitely they investigators seemed to have large impediments put in front of them from DoJ and DoJ has come out and inferred there were none. Lot of he said she said without more info, or any hard info other than their testimony. I think it happened, there might have been some justification in 2020 leading up to the election but after the election it went from difficulty to now were investigating the presidents son.I think its a no good shouting match at this point and most of you haven't really tried to dig into the core of cmcartmans argument, which is if I’ve gotten this right, that the Investigation into Hunters tax dabbles was, allegedly, throttled from the top.
It does, and I admittedly am only poking at this case. Though there are differences in before and after an election.Does it ring possible to anyone that a presidents son or a congress critters daughter receives favorable conditions in relation to the justice system?
I think we all know this is how it works.
I think the potential ability of prosecutors in these situations and many others can be extremely oversized for being a single person. I've seen it first hand at much lower levels but the idea is still the same when you're talking about officials that are picked interested parties.cmcartman simply wants to level the playing field so Hunter will get the same treatment anyone of you would in his shoes.
Seems fair right?
It's not the greatest way to go about it. And it wasn't the only reason I put the article here. When I did I thought it was a direct continuation of the Hunter Biden laptop when it's somewhat of a side story that began before the laptop. And my disagreement with how it was handled by media the FBI warnings and ex DNI agents sticking there nose in it without real data. It's a bit of the same in a sort of way but it's also another can of worms but I agree with your statement though.The question thus becomes, are you sure you want to use the laptop story to break the age old two tier justice system and if so, why?
It seems to me a better way to approach this issue is 1. recognize its a thing and 2. get your lawmakers to draw up bills addressing the issue.
For me I agree. And while I will defend myself regardless. I do understand at least some of the reactions here, just not the extreme extent some have been. I don't normally like bothering to wade into debates. I don't as a general rule have the time to make arguments but I do enjoy reading good argument from both sides. Ideally I would have liked to have seen some discussion about the article. It was also my fault for not linking the house page and the transcripts or having finished reading them when I did. Instead all there is was silence on that, and a bunch of questions not related to it, but to who I was. Which is fair in limited quantities considering how it was brought up and how I've seen prior "discussions" happen before.Its hard not to see it as partisan when someone insists on using specifically “hunters laptop” to leverage this debate into the public sphere.
Offhand other than having a city attorney who had reasons to dislike a relative attempt to bring it out on me when I had admittedly done a stupid thing, I don't. I think Trump could definitely tossed in there though. I've probably ignored it because he has done so many dumb things that I'm tired of hearing about it and wish that he'd finally get convicted of something so I don't hear about it anymore. He's a detriment to a lot of the things I'd like to see Republicans do. Not that they'd do them if he was out of the picture anyway. At this point I think he does more help to Democrats being Trump and dividing his side and being unable to win a general election.You want to address the issue, line up 10 or 20 examples of differential execution of justice and be sure to be non partisan about it.
I get it. It's no different from treatment family member of the rich and powerful are treated. This is not unique to Biden. In this case we have tax and gun violations committed by a messed-up drug addict. The kind of person you want to throw the book at. /sAt the risk of feeding the troll since you don't know anything about the case and continue to add in your random facts and "innocent" questions. This is the first time any information has come out, it's a relatively new case when it comes to the whistleblowing complaints. Both sides were allowed to ask both whistleblowers questions.
You're confusing this with another case.
The IRS investigators saw none AFIAK. At the same time they definitely felt they weren't getting access to all of the information from the laptop. At least one mentioned that the working conclusion (paraphrased) seemed to be that Biden didn't know anything about Hunter's attemp to use his name as leverage.
Probably considering how difficult the case was made by interference and lack of help from DoJ and above in multiple cases over multiple years. The investigation started in secret from before the laptop was found until the day after the transition team starting giving info to the Biden administration. The next day Hunter's lawyer called wanting to talk about his tax returns. Tons of reasons though, implications that Weiss and Garland made statements that didn't appear to be true according to the whistleblowers. Even before he became a candidate, just by virtue of being Biden's son there seemed to be discouragement in even trying to start it with his dad being such a powerful figure in Delaware after 40 years in politics. Once Biden became the nominee and then especially once he was president elect the investigation started to get stonewalled in multiple ways. They were ready to bring charges before the election outside of the normal window ahead of it but the DoJ didn't seem to want to proceed even though it was always bounced back as being a good case. Once it started becoming necessary for AUSA's for DC and California to push the cases forward after the election there was no cooperation. Both new Biden nominees weren't going to charge based on the referrals from Weiss and the IRS investigators so there was no way for the bigger charges to be brought. Weiss couldn't because he was not afforded special counsel status. This goes completely against Garland's testimony. I will say other than the letter Weiss made saying he had full authority (paraphrased) to bring the cases he was their go to man and seemed to help in every way he could according the their testimony. There's a ton more but that's a brief explanation without mentioning all the issues in the case.
This really seems like a case of not two tiers, but three tiers of justice. And you should care because I'm sure it's happened to both sides and will continue to happen more as both sides continue to become more polarized. Biden said it himself, "you don't Fuck with a Biden."
Just a couple minor details on my partYes that's a good summary if you ignore the related aspect that I did bring up about how the laptop story was handled and the pressure there. I'm not even sure it was from "the top". But definitely they investigators seemed to have large impediments put in front of them from DoJ and DoJ has come out and inferred there were none. Lot of he said she said without more info, or any hard info other than their testimony. I think it happened, there might have been some justification in 2020 leading up to the election but after the election it went from difficulty to now were investigating the presidents son.
It does, and I admittedly am only poking at this case. Though there are differences in before and after an election.
I think the potential ability of prosecutors in these situations and many others can be extremely oversized for being a single person. I've seen it first hand at much lower levels but the idea is still the same when you're talking about officials that are picked interested parties.
It's not the greatest way to go about it. And it wasn't the only reason I put the article here. When I did I thought it was a direct continuation of the Hunter Biden laptop when it's somewhat of a side story that began before the laptop. And my disagreement with how it was handled by media the FBI warnings and ex DNI agents sticking there nose in it without real data. It's a bit of the same in a sort of way but it's also another can of worms but I agree with your statement though.
Perhaps term limits in the SC. Term limits for AUSA's that aren't 4 years long, rather 6. At this point nothing has been proven and perhaps nothing will, we could ignore it too.
For me I agree. And while I will defend myself regardless. I do understand at least some of the reactions here, just not the extreme extent some have been. I don't normally like bothering to wade into debates. I don't as a general rule have the time to make arguments but I do enjoy reading good argument from both sides. Ideally I would have liked to have seen some discussion about the article. It was also my fault for not linking the house page and the transcripts or having finished reading them when I did. Instead all there is was silence on that, and a bunch of questions not related to it, but to who I was. Which is fair in limited quantities considering how it was brought up and how I've seen prior "discussions" happen before.
Offhand other than having a city attorney who had reasons to dislike a relative attempt to bring it out on me when I had admittedly done a stupid thing, I don't. I think Trump could definitely tossed in there though. I've probably ignored it because he has done so many dumb things that I'm tired of hearing about it and wish that he'd finally get convicted of something so I don't hear about it anymore. He's a detriment to a lot of the things I'd like to see Republicans do. Not that they'd do them if he was out of the picture anyway. At this point I think he does more help to Democrats being Trump and dividing his side and being unable to win a general election.
I don't want to muddy the water but you could argue the supreme court "packing" is somewhat similar. I'm less annoyed by what happened there because I tend to agree with conservative opinions more often.(even though they really haven't done much I agreed with or cared about since). Much like everyone here who doesn't seem care how it was done or if those DNI officials helped get Biden elected. He did get elected and that's all that matters. This seems to happen more often than it used to in the past, on both sides. The ability though to have one "side" or the other one have a majority in the court can have huge implications and I feel pretty much the same about how that happened as how the laptop story was presented and discredited. Both not illegal but bordering on unethical. In general I care as much or even more for the process than the results but at the same time I know I've ignored things that didn't seem right to me because the ends justify the means. I would prefer not to ever feel that way.
Note, I know this all wasn't directly at me. But it was more directly at me because of starting it in ways.
I dare you to go on facebook, do a search on a hunter biden piece and make a few comments... I guarantee you feed will explode with the most craziest shit. I am not saying this is what cmcartman has done, but we have to realize how these information silos work and if we're not super vigilant about it we *will* get sucked in by this bs.... and its not just facebook of course... plus now you have twitter turned 100% "Joe Rogan" brain by Elmo.You only think this case is a big issue is JUST because Hunter is the son of Joe Biden. At least you admit it.
So you are a moron? The only page numbers that are useful are the published page numbers of the document you are viewing, not the PDF page numbers. The PDF page numbers are not accurate or relevant when viewing a document because a pdf can be modified, meaning pages can be added, or removed that are not included in the actual document being discussed. (example, the exhibits that where added) Which is why it is expected and customary for the published page numbers to always be used if they exist, and never the pdf page numbers, because the published page numbers are the only accurate page numbers of a document in question.I noticed them and realized they weren't useful If I wanted you to read the exhibits as well since they weren't numbered. I would have said those pages of the TRANSCRIPT not the PDF or I would had apologized if I hadn't. But I did say pdf. I'm sorry I think it's easier to just type in those numbers instead of scrolling through it like a monkey. Since the exhibits don't have pages it would have to be "well it's after 104 and before whatever", kind of useless when I wanted you to specifically see the exhibit.
I'm done arguing that. There were two statements in that which about the same thing like I showed you in that story. You picked one and ran with it. The second explained what they meant which to be fair was completely confusing. The story was written on the testimony/exhibits not any statements, you don't seem to understand that. They used quotes incorrectly and confused authenticating it was his laptop with verified the data because well they're morons I suppose. They only thing "verified" was the number off the alleged laptop at that time since they hadn't seen it matched Hunter Biden's iCloud account. I explained this and you're still back here. When you read the memo he made there is a confusing line from exhibit 6 again line 12 b that says simply "Verifications of Device" 12a is the line referring to the cross check of the number. The memo timeline clearly indicates no checking of the data occurred until later.
Yep, this is an IRS whistleblower case that is being talked about, both whistleblowers are IRS agents. Whistleblower #2 pg 17 of both the transcript/pdf "I started this investigation in November of 2018 after reviewing bank reports related to another case I was working on a social media company. Those bank reports identified Hunter Biden as paying prostitutes related to a potential prostitution ring" A separate investigation was started when the laptop info was sent from the FBI to the IRS. They were merged in early 2019.
I'm not confusing shit. You're the one confusing the FBI whistleblower case with this one. I know exactly what you're trying to point out. It's a completely different probe. It's all nonsense because you're confused and you're complaining I'm the one that is.
The file hasn't changed since it was added to the house website. I said "pg 119-127 of the pdf" if you didn't understand that's fine. The pdf hasn't changed and isn't going to get modified as it was tossed together with the transcription which had been labeled separately along with the exhibits. I'll agree to disagree and whatever. You're right I'm wrong, don't care.So you are a moron? The only page numbers that are useful are the published page numbers of the document you are viewing, not the PDF page numbers. The PDF page numbers are not accurate or relevant when viewing a document because a pdf can be modified, meaning pages can be added, or removed that are not included in the actual document being discussed. (example, the exhibits that where added) Which is why it is expected and customary for the published page numbers to always be used if they exist, and never the pdf page numbers, because the published page numbers are the only accurate page numbers of a document in question.
I guess I'm going to lie about being done again.You say you are done arguing, then you continue to argue. Yet you still can't comprehend that you are showing proof of inconstancies of the statements made, as you try argue using statements made via transcript from those making such statements either to a news organization or to Congress. People who tell the truth, who are not making shit up, don't have to go back and reexplain what they meant later. Statements based on real world facts, don't need explanation, and sure as hell don't need clarification. You also keep ignoring most of what I said, and what other said because you are stuck on your belief the transcript is accurate and truthful. Yet, it's all based on a timeline, at least where the laptop is concerned, that was created from hearsay, by the very person who is making the claim of wrong doing. Do you not understand the problem? Everyone sure as hell would make sure they had a timeline that coincides with their accusations of wrong doing. It's a guarantee that their testimony will match, when they are the ones who wrote up the timeline, and it's the timeline being used as the basis of questioning.. it's a win win scenario, but until it's can be backed up by official records from the actual Agency (the FBI), it's a meaningless timeline. I asked where is the official timeline records, given by the FBI, that would calibrate the timeline given by the Whistleblower? There isn't one.. why is that? It goes with the question as to why the testimony isn't being given in an open forum where both sides can cross examine.
I didn't post in this thread until a few days ago. The article was partly based on the Hunter Biden laptop. I"VE ONLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE IRS WHISTLEBLOWERS UNLESS I WAS ASKED REPEATED OTHER QUESTIONS. Yes, I should have just started a new thread. The transcript which I "find to be the holy grail" and the article I first posted are from two IRS whistleblowers which recently came forward to the House. They also happened to work closely with the FBI in the laptop investigation early on because one of the IRS cases was started before it was found. A second was started based on information from the laptop. They were merged together in early 2019 after the laptop info was given to them from the FBI into one case. I get why you can complain it's confusing but at the same you didn't follow the whole thread enough to notice all the other questions I had and the mess that made.I am the one who is confusing the whistleblower's case with this one? So you admit that we are talking about the GOP, and Congress's probe? So that means you also admit that YOU are the one who is trying to make this an argument about the Whistleblower's case, and not what this thread's topic is about, which is the GOP conspiracy theories, and their investigation into Hunter Biden? You are also admitting that you KNEW I was talking about the GOP and Congress's probe into Hunter Biden, when you stated they combined the investigations, Which means you knew that wasn't factual because Congress didn't have more than one investigation about Hunter Biden taking place. Which means, you deliberately said that in an attempt to tried and turn this into being about the whistleblowers case, as you just admitted you know which investigation is being discussed in this topic. Yet, you say you are not confused? I am sorry, I take that back, you are not confused. I will be more blunt and not so forgiving with my words: You appear to be just a manipulating trolling little bitch! That is why you refuse and/or skirt around most people's questions about the glaring issues with the laptop and your perception of what it all means.
Nope! Remember, these guys refused to be interviewed by anyone who was not friendly to their position.Have we seen ANY whistleblowers brought by Republicans in a public hearing subject to cross?
I keep hearing “not THOSE whistleblowers the OTHER whistleblowers”
We haven’t seen ANY Republican whistleblowers. Why? They have no credible testimony. No credible evidence.
Benghazi
Buttery mail
Biden bribery on laptop
Birtherism
Republicans lived off talking about this shit for years. No evidence but used it to damage Democrats
People need to stop trying to kick the football held by Lucy Van Pelt
I think its a no good shouting match at this point and most of you haven't really tried to dig into the core of cmcartmans argument, which is if I’ve gotten this right, that the Investigation into Hunters tax dabbles was, allegedly, throttled from the top.
Does it ring possible to anyone that a presidents son or a congress critters daughter receives favorable conditions in relation to the justice system?
I think we all know this is how it works.
cmcartman simply wants to level the playing field so Hunter will get the same treatment anyone of you would in his shoes.
Seems fair right?
The question thus becomes, are you sure you want to use the laptop story to break the age old two tier justice system and if so, why?
It seems to me a better way to approach this issue is 1. recognize its a thing and 2. get your lawmakers to draw up bills addressing the issue.
Its hard not to see it as partisan when someone insists on using specifically “hunters laptop” to leverage this debate into the public sphere.
You want to address the issue, line up 10 or 20 examples of differential execution of justice and be sure to be non partisan about it.
That was not the premise of the right wing red alert concerning the laptop. Was it not that laptop has proof of corruption by Joe Biden? That accusation has fallen flat.I think its a no good shouting match at this point and most of you haven't really tried to dig into the core of cmcartmans argument, which is if I’ve gotten this right, that the Investigation into Hunters tax dabbles was, allegedly, throttled from the top.
There was that group of suspended FBI agents where Dems confronted them, have you received money from Ali Alexander? Gym Jordan’s rebuttal was well they have to eat!!!Have we seen ANY whistleblowers brought by Republicans in a public hearing subject to cross?
I keep hearing “not THOSE whistleblowers the OTHER whistleblowers”
We haven’t seen ANY Republican whistleblowers. Why? They have no credible testimony. No credible evidence.
Benghazi
Buttery mail
Biden bribery on laptop
Birtherism
Republicans lived off talking about this shit for years. No evidence but used it to damage Democrats
People need to stop trying to kick the football held by Lucy Van Pelt