Biden Slams CBS Reporter For Asking About The Hunter Biden Scandal

For years, many of us have criticized President Donald Trump for his attacks on the media when they asked him about controversies involving him or his family.  The media however has been largely silent as Democratic leaders have ratcheted up attacks on any journalists who question their positions. That was evident recently when Speaker Nancy Pelosi bizarrely attacked CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer as an apologist for the Trump Administration simply because he pressed her on blocking the stimulus package. Other liberals attacked Blitzer after the interview.  Now Joe Biden slammed the first network reporter who asked for a response to the unfolding scandal involving his son Hunter Biden. In emails found on the laptop, Joe Biden is named in communications with foreign figures seeking influence over U.S. policy. Biden refused to comment and then disparaged CBS News reporter Bo Erickson for even asking him the question.

Erickson simply asked “Mr. Biden, what is your response to the New York Post story about your son, sir?”

Biden responded “I have no response.” Then Biden added “I know you’d ask it. I have no response, it’s another smear campaign, right up your alley, those are the questions you always ask.”

Biden has been hammered for refusing to tell voters whether he will support packing the Supreme Court. This however concerns emails where there are not just allegations of influence peddling worth millions coming from China, Russia, and Ukraine but references his possible knowledge or involvement. As I wrote recently, there is a striking refusal of the Biden campaign to offer the expected responses to such allegations.

I have expressed my skepticism over how this laptop was found and when it was disclosed publicly. This could very well be the work of foreign intelligence. However, as I discussed this morning in the Hill, that does not mean that the emails and photos are fabricated. Many of us have long denounced Hunter Biden’s work as a classic influence peddling scheme. That does not make it a crime, but it is a common form of corruption in Washington. These emails however, if true, would contradict Joe Biden’s past statements of his lack of knowledge or involvement. Moreover, it would shatter Joe Biden’s repeated assurance that his son did “nothing wrong.”  One can argue over whether this is a crime, but few would say that there is nothing wrong with raw influence peddling worth millions with foreign entities.

Now however the question is how other journalists will respond. ABC has yet to even air the allegations and failed to ask a single question to Biden on the scandal during the recent town hall event. Whether these emails are fabricated or authentic, this story is major news. The question is whether there are major news organizations willing to report it.

583 thoughts on “Biden Slams CBS Reporter For Asking About The Hunter Biden Scandal”

  1. There is no scandal. From Bloomberg, based at least partly on their review of Ukrainian documents and interviews with Prosecutor Shokin’s aide: The NYTs, WSJ, and WaPo came to similar conclusions in the in depth reporting. Note that Shokin’s lawyer are Fox “legal analysts” Joe DeGenova and Victoria Toensing.

    “President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer is raising the specter that Joe Biden intervened in Ukrainian politics to help his son’s business.

    But if that was Biden’s aim, he was more than a year late, based on a timeline laid out by a former Ukrainian official and in Ukrainian documents.

    The official described to Bloomberg details about the country’s political dynamic in the run-up to early 2016 when Biden, then the U.S. vice president, threatened to hold up U.S. funding to Ukraine unless it cracked down on corruption. Biden’s chief demand was the ouster of a top Ukrainian prosecutor who he said had been ineffective. The episode has come under the spotlight in the last week because at one point, that prosecutor had been investigating a natural gas company where Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, sat on the board and received substantial compensation.

    U.S Vice President Joe Biden Visits China
    Joe Biden, right, with Hunter BidenPhotographer: Andy Wong/Pool/Getty Images
    There’s little question that the Bidens’ paths in Ukraine held the potential for conflict, and in a tweet last week, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said the U.S. should investigate the matter. But what has received less attention is that at the time Biden made his ultimatum, the probe into the company — Burisma Holdings, owned by Mykola Zlochevsky — had been long dormant, according to the former official, Vitaliy Kasko.

    “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said in an interview last week. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

    Kasko’s assessment adds a wrinkle to one of the first political intrigues of the 2020 election season. It undercuts the idea that Biden, now a top Democratic presidential candidate, was seeking to sideline a prosecutor who was actively threatening a company tied to his son. Instead, it appears more consistent with Biden’s previous statements that he was pressing for the removal of a prosecutor who was failing to tackle rampant corruption: According to public reports and internal documents from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office, U.S. officials had expressed concern for more than a year about Ukrainian prosecutors’ failure to assist an international investigation of Zlochevsky.

    Joe Biden declined to comment through a spokesman, who also said that Hunter Biden wouldn’t comment. Zlochevsky couldn’t be located for comment. Representatives for Burisma, which is based in Cyprus, didn’t respond to emails requesting comment.

    U.K. Probe

    Questions about the potential Ukraine conflict resurfaced with recent reports of a video in which Joe Biden described how he’d threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees from Ukraine unless its leaders dismissed Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. The New York Times reported on May 1 that Hunter Biden had a stake in the outcome because at the time he was on the board of Zlochevsky’s company, where he was paid as much as $50,000 a month for his work.

    Hunter Biden joined the board in April 2014, two months after U.K. authorities requested information from Ukraine as part of a probe against Zlochevsky related to money laundering allegations. Zlochevsky had been minister of environmental protection under then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia in February 2014 after mass protests.

    After the U.K. request, Ukrainian prosecutors opened their own case, accusing Zlochevsky of embezzling public funds. Burisma and Zlochevsky have denied the allegations.

    The case against Zlochevsky and his Burisma Holdings was assigned to Shokin, then a deputy prosecutor. But Shokin and others weren’t pursuing it, according to the internal reports from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office reviewed by Bloomberg.

    In a December 2014 letter, U.S. officials warned Ukrainian prosecutors of negative consequences for Ukraine over its failure to assist the U.K., which had seized Zlochevsky’s assets, according to the documents.

    Those funds, $23.5 million, were unblocked in 2015 when a British court determined there wasn’t enough evidence to justify the continued freeze, in part because Ukrainian prosecutors had failed to provide the necessary information.

    No Action
    Shokin became prosecutor general in February 2015. Over the next year, the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund criticized officials for not doing enough to fight corruption in Ukraine.

    Shokin took no action to pursue cases against Zlochevsky throughout 2015, said Kasko, who was Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation and helping in asset-recovery investigations. Kasko said he had urged Shokin to pursue the investigations.

    The U.S. stepped up its criticism in September 2015, when its ambassador to Ukraine, during a speech, accused officials working under Shokin of “subverting” the U.K. investigation.

    Kasko resigned in February 2016, citing corruption and lawlessness in the prosecutor general’s office.

    The U.S. plan to push for Shokin’s dismissal didn’t initially come from Biden, but rather filtered up from officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation. Embassy personnel had called for U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine to be tied to broader anti-corruption efforts, including Shokin’s dismissal, this person said.

    Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion if Ukraine didn’t crack down on corruption reportedly came in March. That same month, hundreds of Ukrainians demonstrated outside President Petro Poroshenko’s office demanding Shokin’s resignation, and he was dismissed.

    Shokin has denied any accusations of wrongdoing and declined to provide immediate comment for this article. In an interview with the Ukrainian website published on May 6, Shokin said he believes he was fired because of his Burisma investigation, which he said had been active at the time.

    In October 2017, Burisma issued a statement saying Ukrainian prosecutors had closed all legal and criminal proceedings against it….”

    1. All this crap has been debunked long ago.

      There was a flurry of activity on the PG investigation of Burisma immediately before Biden’s demand to fire Shokin.
      Hunter Biden was scheduled to be interviewed the day after Shokin was fired.

      The claims that Shokin was corrupt should be trivial to prove – they never have been. He lives quite modestly on his government returement income.

      Forgotten is that all the claims about Shokin originate with the FBI task force run by Joe Biden.

      The IMF and EU claims – all rest on the nonsense coming From Biden’s task force.

      You fail to grasp the scale of the problem.

      Further you are ignoring the ethical issues here.

      Hunter Biden is free to do business with Burisma. But The Vice President (and everyone in government) is ethically barred from participating in decisions that will directly impact businesses their relatives own. Not only is that the law – it was specifically part of the ethics in government documents that Obama made everyone sign – including Biden and Clinton.

      While you and NYT are totally wrong about the few facts they are reporting – and there is no problem at all with the time line.
      In fact it is damning.

      It would not matter if you were right. Biden would still be ethically barred from the actions he took.

      And he would be legally barred from getting money from his son for work that was impacted bhy the actions of Biden as VP.

    2. Is the left honestly so morally bankrupt as to be able to delude themselves like this ?

      There are people in jail for far less than this.

      Duke Cunningham went to jail for less than this Dan Rostenkowski. ……

    3. Why not investigate so as not to take the word of Shokin or Kasko? Why not find out who’s lying? It’s undeniable that the Dem MSM lied when they told America it was all “debunked.” The impeachment scam was to keep Hunter and Joe’s dealings too hot for Trump or his lawyer, the only one’s motivated enough to take on the hornets nest of the deepest darkest secret of the corrupt Obama White House.

      1. The FBI had all this information near the start of the Dem’s impeachment hearings and SAT ON IT.

        That alone is a serious issue.

        If Brady applies to impeachment hearings it is a violation of the law.

        Even if it does not it is politically corrupt.

  2. CNN is running flattering documentary on what a great guy Joe Biden is…..would that be an “in kind” campaign contribution? Where is the wonderful documentary on Trump?

    Look what Maria Shriver tweeted out: (gag)

    ‘Watching a special on Joe Biden on CNN and it’s so moving. I just can’t wait for him to be our President. A man who has this decency, this empathy, this humanity. I’m counting the days… I can’t wait.’

    Yo Maria, you gonna be waiting a loooooong time….

    Trump 2020!

  3. “Who are you going to believe, me or your own [lyin’] eyes?”

    – Groucho Marx

    Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) parrot Groucho asking whom are you going to believe; Biden or your own [lyin’] eyes, which are viewing the certified evidence?

  4. “Who are you going to believe, me or your own [lyin’] eyes?”

    – Groucho Marx

    Communists parrot Groucho asking whom are you going to believe; Biden or your own [lyin’] eyes, which are viewing the certified evidence?

  5. Hunter Biden emails claims he was asked to ‘close down any pursuits against the head of the firm’

    “New leaked email revealed by Tucker Carlson shows that Joe Biden visited Ukraine AFTER Hunter was asked by his business partner to arrange for ‘influential US policy makers’ to travel to the country to help their firm Burisma”

  6. I don’t follow Turley, but my impression had been that he tries to be straight with his analysis. This piece makes me think I’ve been mistaken.

    Turley said, “These emails however, if true, would contradict Joe Biden’s past statements of his lack of knowledge or involvement. Moreover, it would shatter Joe Biden’s repeated assurance that his son did “nothing wrong.” One can argue over whether this is a crime, but few would say that there is nothing wrong with raw influence peddling worth millions with foreign entities.”

    I asked about the first sentence in an earlier comment, because I thought maybe I was overlooking something he had explained elsewhere, but no one here could explain it. There’s nothing I’ve seen in the emails that would contradict what Joe Biden has said about his knowledge or involvement. Turley’s apparent error on that seems to me inexcusable.

    The rest of what I quote from Turley isn’t much better. Was there raw influence peddling worth millions? Or did Hunter Biden merely play on the hopes of others that he would sell influence, without ever delivering? It’s the difference between actual collusion in bad acts and taking advantage of those who wish to commit them. Still smelly, but not what Turley appears to make of it.

    Turley thinks this is a big story. It may be, but perhaps not in the way he assumes. It may be a story of how easily people are misled by professional liars and propagandists who seek to harm the US. I hope it won’t be a repeat of 2016 that way.

    Unless he can support it, Turley should correct what he said.

    1. Turley doesn’t try to be straight in his analyses and he hardly ever corrects his mistakes, except for typos.

          1. Well, that’s sloppy, but he was joined in that by many who should know better, including news organizations that are far from pro-Trump.

            1. Just read through his columns and you’ll find more examples, or browse some of the Corrections comments.

      1. Again – if you make claims of moral failure YOU are obligated to prove them or the failure is yours.

        Frankly Turley leans too far to the left.

        He implies in this article that the claims are false. The odds of that are small.
        He is giving the Biden’s the benefit of doubt they are not entitled to.

        This is the court of public oppinion not a trial – though the evidence is good enough for a conviction at trial.

    2. Professor Turley said “if the emails were true ” it would contradict Bidens statement when he said he had no knowledge of any of his sons business. The emails say that Joe had a meeting with a Ukrainian official and the meeting was set up by Hunter. I told them. If they didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating the company my son was working for they’re not getting the billion dollars. What if the prosecutor investigated the compay Hunter was working for and shut it down. Oh my! Hunter would be out of a $50,000 a month job. C’mon man we didn’t just fall of the Turnip truck. Well some of didn’t.

      1. “The emails say that Joe had a meeting with a Ukrainian official and the meeting was set up by Hunter.”

        No, they don’t, as has been repeatedly explained in the media. Read it and think it through.

        The part you write after that isn’t true either, but you would know that if you cared. Truth is a very low priority in partisan politics.

        1. I don’t care what the media says. I read what the actual email said. Have you read what the media said or have you read the actual emails. Relying on what the media says in this country right now is amazingly naive. Many times I have watched Fox News and beleived that they were slanting the news and I was angry that they had done so. Have you done the same when watching CNN or MSNBC.

          1. I didn’t ask you to care what the media says. The media, however, has frequently made it very clear what the facts of the case are, so no one who cares what they really are has any excuse not to know.

            That is, the media has repeatedly quoted the email that’s been presented as a “smoking gun” and explained the obvious fact that it doesn’t say or imply there was any meeting. Something any speaker of English should be able to see immediately anyway.

            Again, you should read it and think it through.

            I don’t watch CNN or MSNBC or click on their content. Nor Fox or any other poisonous, intentionally-biased, hate-based media outlet.

            1. “I didn’t ask you to care what the media says. The media, however, has frequently made it very clear what the facts of the case are,”

              Is that so ? I beleive you cut and pasted an NPR story – that story was fully of things disparaging the NY Post evidence – but there was not a single fact in the entire long cut and paste.

              You told us the email does not say Biden met with the Burisma Ukrainian, and you said that Hunter did not seek to get the hard drive back.
              Both are false.

              There are emails for both. Some of us can read. We do not need NPR to tell us what an email says.

              These and other emails are a “smoking gun”. It MAY be possible to refute them – but it is not likely.

              And yes it DOES say there was a meeting.

              It is arguable that the author is not a native english speaker and has made tense errors. But what is SAYS

              “Again, you should read it and think it through.” – good advice – here it is.

              “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together. It’s realty an honor and pleasure,”

              1. Indeed, some of us can read. To try to help you with that, when did the meeting you claim the email says happened occur, before or after the email was written? How can you tell? That’s a hint for what should be obvious.

                I didn’t say half of what you attribute to me.

                1. On my phone right now there is a text saying to my wife saying that the C19 test I had to have to get my outpatient procedure done Wednesday was unpleasant.

                  Is it reasonable from that text alone to conclude that I had a C19 test ?

                  Is it necescary to prove the date and time ?

                  On Wednesday I will have a minor procedure done – that procedure can not occur unless the test comes back negative.

                  If the procedure takes place – are you able to conclude that the test was negative ? Or must you personally see the results ?

                  Are you even more strongly able to conclude that the test took place ?

                  If you personally do not know the date and time and place of the test – does that mean it never happened ?

                  If My Doctor only knows the results of the test – not the date, time or place – can he conclude that the test took place ?

                  The Burisma executive emailed hunter thnking him for the meeting.

                  It is possibel he is lying.
                  It is possible he is addle brained.
                  What is likely – in fact beyond a reasonable doubt is that the meeting took place.

                  It is not necescary to know the color of the drapes int he room to be certain.

                  I do not need to prove things that are irrelevant.

                  The press is free to further explore the where and when and if it can prove that the meeting did not take place that would suggest fraud.
                  But so far there is no actual evidence of fraud.

                  Even the Biden’s are refusing to say anything – because even denials provide information that can be rebutted.

                  1. You excel at missing the point, a common defense mechanism. Again, and this should be simple, when did the supposed meeting occur, before or after the email was written? if you can’t tell from the email, say that. If you can tell, say how you can tell.

                    Again, that’s a hint for what should be obvious, but since you still can’t see it, just answer the simple questions, and I’ll spell it for you.

                    1. Missing your point – no I do not miss your points – I flat out reject them.

                      You failed to make plausible arguments. You engage in ludicrous word parsing nonsense that does not get you were you want and declare you case proven because – you say so.

                      That is not any valid logical point.

                      “Again, and this should be simple”
                      Why because you say so ?

                      “when did the supposed meeting occur, before or after the email was written?”
                      After – whether you like it or not that is actually clear. The Burisma exec TWICE referes to a PAST meeting.
                      Nor does the email as a whole make mush sense if it is not past tense.

                      “if you can’t tell from the email, say that.”
                      You can.

                      “If you can tell, say how you can tell.”
                      By reading.

                      “Again, that’s a hint for what should be obvious, but since you still can’t see it, just answer the simple questions, and I’ll spell it for you.”
                      I did, you failed.

                      Your claim that anything is no clear to you reguires not merely rejecting the plain meaning – but rejecting what is crystal clear is that the Bidens were heavily involved in influence peddling.

                      BTW – while This email is damning it is far from the only evidence. It is part of a decades long patter for the Biden Family and Burisma is likely small potatoes compared to China.

                      I would further note that the Quite for the laptop repair is now public and the signature matches that of Hunter Biden.

                      Forgey ? Maybe, but then you need someone capable of forging Hunter Biden’s signature in real time. This is not a lab forgery.

                      The quote was signed at the store.

                      If Hunter delivered the laptop – and no one is actually denying that, then any claims of Russian involvement burn to ash.

                      I would also point out there is now a Hunter Biden aide on record advising Hunter to be more careful, and noting that Hunter said he could not. That his father and his family needed the money.

                      By the standards you used to convict the Trump campaign of Russian collusion – The entire Biden family has sold out the country.
                      If this were during a war – it would be treason.

                      While I suspect the Clinton’s are far more corrupt than the Biden’s – I can not think of an instances were a president or Vice President was so demonstrably guilty of selling out the country. I am sure there were some – but not with this kind of evidence.

                      And if you do not think this is sufficient for a criminal conviction – you have not seen a criminal trial

                      Regardless, you can not morally vote for Biden.

                    2. There is one specific aspect of Hunter Biden’s conduct that does reflect on his father – beyond the influence peddling which they were jointly engaged in.

                      And that is Hunter Biden’s sexual misconduct.

                      There have been allegations about Trump, and allegations about Biden.

                      It is extremely common for patterns of behavior of fathers to be reflected in their children – especially sons.

                      Father’s who abuse their spouses produce sons who abuse their spouses.

                      Fathers who molest their children produce children who molest their children.

                      It tends to be true that sons treat women as their fathers did.

                      Whatever you might think of Trump’s sons they are not rapists, peophiles nor are they using trafficed women as prostitutes.

                      While it may not be absolute you can infer the behaviour of their fathers from that of the son’s.

                      Hunter Biden’s sexual conduct is criminal, and he has a predilection for teens.

                      We have the same but more muted claims that Joe Biden sexualizes young girls – even if he may not act on it.

                      We also know that he has no problem with fondling the breasts of the wives of secret service agents.

        2. Sorry SP – I do not need media analysis to explain this to me.

          “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,”

          1. Evidently you need someone to explain it to you, as it clearly doesn’t say what you keep claiming it does, that there was a meeting.

            You’re a prime example of the power of ideology over reason and truth, and a perfect vehicle for a foreign-run disinformation campaign.

            1. SP – can you read. Sorry the answer to that is SELF EVIDENTLY no.

              I have quoted the text repeatedly.

              People who spent time together – have met.

              If one person thanks another for a meeting – they MET.

              This is a very short email and it not only says they met, is says to TWICE.

              1. One of us definitely has a reading problem.

                I already responded to your reading of an apparent misspelling as correct, which makes grammatical hash of an otherwise sensible sentence.

                No, obviously, thanking someone for an opportunity to meet doesn’t imply there has already been a meeting.

                I shouldn’t have to explain these simple points to you, but you clearly are unwilling to question the transparent propaganda you rely on, so others have to help you. I hope you’re grateful.

                1. “No, obviously, thanking someone for an opportunity to meet doesn’t imply there has already been a meeting. I shouldn’t have to explain these simple points to you,”

                  I don’t think you are the one to explain such points to John. So far your writing skills exceed your fact gathering skills and interpretations. I think that statement is sufficient to tell one that a meeting took place especially since the one who wrote the email was heading to the airport that day.

                  1. Allan,
                    Just consider who’s stopped commenting recently and who has started. She’s smart enough to adjust her style, but she will always be on the wrong side of the facts. Just like Book, she hopes a new ID erases her failed arguments. Don’t let them off the hook.

                    1. Yes, Olly I have thought about that as well. What this type of constant name changing proves is the left can’t sustain their arguments. Eventually they put themselves in the shape of a pretzel and can’t get away from who they are. That is when they change their names. The one that I argued with constantly originally appeared to me to be multiple aliases but with time I could tie them all together whether he was using the totally generic alias, semi consistent icon, and even a variable icon. The use of all these pretend friends prove them to be liars and deceitful

                      I’m not a big blogger and don’t do social media even though on this blog I spent a bit of time here trying to learn a mindset. That mindset is dangerous and tells a bit about how the Germian people gave up their democracy and permitted the Nazi regime to take power.

                    2. Ha, paranoia is also a common defense mechanism. So many ways to preserve one’s beliefs against the force of reality.

                    3. Olly, you’re nuts if you think Committ would waste her time with John and Allan.

                    4. “Olly, you’re nuts…”

                      Olly, this is the anonymous runt with umpteen pretend anonymous friends who also has consistent and inconsistent icons when he wishes to flash the blog. This is the nutcase I didn’t respond to for 24 hours at your request. It wasn’t difficult because he is absolutely worthless.

                    5. Allan,
                      Do you remember when Mike Appleton would routinely comment on this blog? I didn’t always agree with him, but I respected his knowledge of the law and experience. Same for Turley. Fast forward 8 years and I have more respect for JT than before. He is as committed as ever to post about the facts and evidence of current events relative to the law. He’s proven to place the rule of law above everything else. Conversely, where is MA? Where is his legal opinion on the Russiagate fiasco? Where is his opinion on where the facts and evidence lead us to today? His absence is noteworthy, perhaps because his ethics won’t permit him to argue a position supportive of violations of the law. I suspect if he had a legal position that would shed a positive light on the Democratic party, he would make it.

                    6. Olly, I haven’t been on the blog that long. I only know of a very rare short appearances by Mike Appleton who appeared to be a reasonable guy but didn’t get into any real hot debates. I thought he might deal with civil liberties fairly as does the Professor even though his leanings are to the left. I think, however, he has been burned and might be learning the mendacity of the left.

                  2. This isn’t a matter of what you think but of what English words actually mean and imply. The clear fact is that the words imply only that the author is grateful that a meeting has been arranged, or at least promised. Whether it ever happened is another matter. This shouldn’t be controversial among those who put plain truth over ideology and partisanship.

                    And it should also be kept in mind that even if there was a meeting, which we don’t know, there’s no way to know what its nature might have been, or whether JB had any advance knowledge of whom he was meeting or why. Many meetings with high politicians don’t extend beyond shaking hands and saying a few words on the side, and leave little or no impression on the politician.

                    There’s really nothing solid there at all.

                    If you’d prefer to explain these plain facts to John instead of me doing it, please do. I’d prefer that too.

                    1. “The clear fact is that the words imply only that the author is grateful that a meeting has been arranged”

                      That is what you wish to believe but he was thanking for the opportunity to meet and was now heading for the airport. That tells one the meeting took place earlier. You prefer to use a lot of words to hide you lack of ability to adequately interpret the event under discussion.

                      I don’t have to explain your facts to John. He is far ahead of you. You base your arguments on whatever writing skills you have and perhaps the arguments of others. What you seem to lack is facts, logic and the desire to seek the truth.

                    2. That he appears to have been in DC when he wrote the email would make it more natural to read it as about a meeting that had just occurred. But it wouldn’t change the fact that it doesn’t clearly say so, no matter what either of us wishes to believe. Facts about words and their meanings don’t bend to our will that way.

                      And I again remind you that even if such a meeting occurred, it doesn’t contradict what JB has said.

                    3. ” That he appears to have ”

                      You are playing word games while dismissing rational discussion but in the end you rely on what Joe Biden said. In other words after writing all your theories about what the words mean and impugning John’s obvious superior knowledge you are left telling us that whatever Joe says must be true. How fanciful.

                    4. SP – the Biden campaign is now backpedaling and admitting the meeting likely took place.

                      You have LOST this argument. Do you really wish to keep your poor grammar debate up.

                      We now have the Obama administration holding a conference call with a private Company representing Burisma, to arrange a meeting with VP Biden.

                      So not only do we have Biden corruption – we have tied the entire Obama administration in.

                      Just to be clear this tied the whole Obama administration to Burisma, and the whole corrupt pay for play scandal.

                      It means that Biden was not out privately lining his own pockets, but that the Obama WH was aware and involved.

                      This gets worse and worse.


                      The Obama administration was the most corrupt administration in us history.
                      We continually learn more and more.

                    5. We are way past “contradicting what JB said”.

                      Biden said he had no awareness of Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine prior to blackmailing Ukraine to fire Shokin.

                      If Hunter Biden is arranging meetings between Joe Biden and Burisma Exac’s – that remark is FALSE.

                      BTW that is merely one of DOZENS of nails in the Joe did not know coffin.

                      It is also true that if Joe was aware of Hunter’s involvement in Burisma – which he absolutely was and not merely by this email,
                      then the entire Impeachment was a FRAUD.

                      At the bare minimum given Hunter’s involvment with Burisma Joe Biden commeted numerous ethical violations, government rule violations and government law violations. He also likely committed several crimes.

                      Regardless Trump’s request for an investigation of the Biden’s was proper.

                      This also means that JB should thank his lucky stars he did not have to testify at the impeachment hearing.

                      It also means there was more than sufficient basis for Trump to demand the testimony of Hunter and Joe.

                      It also means that one again this “debunked Ukraine right wing conspiracy” nonsense that the left has been selling is anohter FRAUD,

                      Like the “collusion delusion” that you bought.

                      How much misconduct, lying and criminal conduct has to be exposed before you grasp how horribly corrupt your hero’s and your party is.

                      You have gone after Trump with everything and come up with ZIP.

                      Yet, most every allegation against your hero’s ages well with time.

                      You do not seem to grasp that the corruption on the left is a natural consequence of the immorality of the ideology.

                    6. If mere assertion made you right, Allan, you’d never be wrong. People typically resort to complaints about word games when they’re unable to give a rational response. That appears to be the case here. What I’ve said is clearly true, no matter what either of us wants to believe.

                      You have a choice: accept that you have no rational response, and adjust your views accordingly, or stick with what your ideology and partisan desires dictate. Choose well.

                    7. “If mere assertion made you right, Allan, you’d never be wrong.”

                      Here we go again, more rhetoric, more word games. This gal can’t stop trying to use words as a substitute for facts and logic. She added none of either. She’s toast and she knows it.

                      There are three parts to the email. The invite, the spending of time and then the goodbye. The final part makes it absolutely clear that the meeting had already taken place.

                      “Thank you for inviting me to D.C. and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together”

                      “I could come to you office … on my way to airport. “ (Spelling and grammar errors kept as they were written.)

                    8. SP – the Biden campaign is now admitting the meeting “may” have taken place.

                      You have been left high and dry.

                      I would further note that the Obama Whitehouse has now been tied to arranging a meeting with Joe and Burisma.

                      And YOU impeached Trump for investigating this ?

                      Where was the MSM when all this was going on ?

                      Where were they for the past 4 years ?

                    9. Repeating your claim doesn’t improve it, Allan.

                      You’ve made your choice, hyperpartisan absolute certainty over messier and less partisan reality. It’s a natural choice, human nature, but not the patriotic choice. Hyperpartisanship displaces all other values, including truth and national good. A nation of people making that choice cannot stand.

                    10. “Trump is doing nothing to help slow the spread.”

                      Sanpete, what do you mean repeating?

                      Do you mean repeating the exact words written in the email? Of course they are meaningful. That email is what the discussion is all about. You want to forget the end of the email where he talks about going to the airport making it even clearer that he had already met with Joe Biden.

                      “You’ve made your choice, hyperpartisan “

                      I’m the hyper partisan? That is delusional. The hyper partisan is you who only deals with part of the email leaving out the rest that proves you wrong. I didn’t call that act deceitful because I gave you the benefit of the doubt choosing to assume that you never saw the end of the email.

                      Your response here is all personal and not relating to the email and whether or not the email meant the man had already met with Joe Biden which he had.

                      Maybe you missed that part. Let me give you the benefit of doubt a second or third time by repeating the important passages copied from the email with spelling and grammar errors. Maybe then you will deal with substance, logic and facts leaving our your attempt to use meaningless words as your evidence.

                      “Thank you for inviting me to D.C. and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together”

                      “I could come to you office … on my way to airport. “

                    11. SP:

                      The hyperpartisan here is you.

                      Not only was the original NYP Release a solid prima facia of bribery – probably sufficient to convict in much of the country,

                      But it is consistent with all the prior evidence of Biden Corruption collected by reporters such as John Solomon – much of which came from sources like the US State department via FOIA requests.

                      But as time moves forward – more gets out.

                      It is near certain Hunter Biden signed the quote.

                      The Biden campaign says Biden MAY have addmitted to meeting with Burisma.

                      The DNI has started that there is no evidence that the Biden laptops are Russian Disinformation and no one in congress was ever told otherwise – IE Shiff is again lying.

                      Another NYP story exposes that the Obama white house had a conference call with Blue Star to arrange a meeting with VP Biden and Burisma.

                      There are increasingly no ways out of this that are not influence peddling – that not merely involves VP Biden but the entire Obama Whitehouse, and the Biden family.

                      But the only thing that must be proven is that Joe Biden was aware of Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma.

                      And that has been established.

                      Knowledge of Hunter’s involvement in Burisma means:

                      The impeachment was a fraud, Trump’s request to investigate was properly predicated.

                      That Biden was required to remove himself from all matters involving Hunter’s business interests and did not.

                      That is an ethics violation and a violation of the law and probably a crime.

                      That is the minimum that must be established – and it has been firmly established.

                      There is no “Debunked right wing ukrainian conspiracy theory”

                      The only question is whether Biden’s conduct was merely ilegal or actually criminal
                      And how far beyond Biden it went.
                      And how many people are involved in the coverup.
                      And how many people are involved in the corruption itself.

                    12. Ha, Allan, I can see now why you complain so about word games. Natural to project that way. What I said is clear. And I already very plainly and simply addressed what you said about the email. What I said is still there should you want to actually read it.

                      Yes, you’re clearly a hyperpartisan. It’s the disease of the age, when so many rely on intentionally-biased, hate-based media sources like Fox and MSNBC that work hard to induce that. A plague on the nation.

                    13. “Ha, Allan, I can see now why you complain so about word games. Natural to project that way. What I said is clear. ”

                      Sanpete, what you said was nothing but words, typical of the type of rhetoric you spew. This is another empty post of yours that refuses to deal directly with the email, fact, logic or context. What do you hope to gain with responses empty of content? I think you like reading what you write.

                    14. Give the text of the email to 100 people without the right left political context and all or almost all will tell you that Hunter was being thanked for a meeting that took place.

                    15. Again, Allan, what I said is still there, should you decide to actually read it. I clearly addressed every substantive point you raised.

                      I think I see more projection …

                    16. You addressed the the points with word spin, not with logic or fact and neglected to address the last 5 words at all. The more you talk the more you prove that spinning words is your game. Fact and logic need not apply.

                    17. Your claims have been overtaken by events – you are wrong.

                      VP Biden had one or more meetings with Burisma execs – and the Obama WH participated in setting them up.

                    18. Allan, that’s clearly not true, but I leave you to your view, as nothing I say can alter it. You’ll have to figure it out yourself.

                    19. ” nothing I say can alter it. ”

                      No, Sanpete, you cannot make a giraffe out of a horse. All you can do is dress the horse up which is what you have been doing in most of your arguements.

                    20. New Yorker suspends writer Jeffrey Toobin for showing penis during Zoom call

                      What is it with leftists and their Wiener’s? In the press they all think they are hotdogs.

                    21. John Say’s bombshell is dated Oct 14, or – doing the math here, give me a minute – a week ago.

                    22. Sanpete, John Say’s proof for his assertion is an article from another right wing source dated Oct 14.

                    23. The source of the article is irrelevant. The facts in the article are what matters.

                      You left wing nuts are so fixated on appeals to authority you are unable to grasp FACTS.

                  3. Allan, you’ve previously talked about how happy you were that Committ ignores you. Are you saying she changed her mind and is now addressing you using the name Sanpete?

                    1. The statement in question is: ” Are you saying she changed her mind and is now addressing you using the name Sanpete?”

                      This comment is a bit of attempted mind reading in question form. I know what I said before.

                    2. It was just a question asking you to clarify what you meant. You clearly don’t want to answer.

                    3. Does he have to ?

                      Allan is speculating. I suspect the same.

                      I do not really care much. SP is as dishonest as CTDHD.

                      Same person ? Different Person ? Doesn;’nt matter.

                    4. “I do not really care much. SP is as dishonest as CTDHD. Same person ? Different Person ? Doesn;’nt matter.”

                      John, I agree with you. Sanpete is just as dishonest as Needs to be Committed was. Is she the same person? Anonymous the guy with a generic icon and who is afraid of his own body is asking me that question. Who cares. She is as ungrateful to the moderator as was CTDHD. She lies as much as CTDHD and misuses the word hyper partisan apparently ignorant of what the word means. Based on her lack of knowledge, refusal to accept what is known she could be the icon for hyper partisanship. She lives for wordplay but facts and logic escape her.

                      She is rapidly fading to the level of a Natacha.

                2. “One of us definitely has a reading problem.”

                  Yup, the email is clear and you are trying to find creative ways to find another meaning.

                  I have not seen them yet – but purportedly the rest of the email thread is now available.

                  I would further note that you are making a ludicrously stupid claim.

                  The Burisma exec email is part of a decades long PATTERN of conduct.

                  Not only of the Biden’s – but numerous prominent democrats.

                  I beleive that Archer Devon is charged with and pleading Guilty to a scam involving ripping off indian tribes that Hunter did not participate in,
                  Kerry’s son as well as Pelosi are aparently tied to that.

                  Devon and Kerry are also part of the Burisma and China influence peddling.

                  There is no speculation regarding Hunter and Joe Meeting with the Chinese – there are photos.

                  But there are several reasons for focusing on the ukraine.

                  The first is that it should be crystal clear at this moment that Trump had very legitimate reasons to ask Ukraine to investigate the Biden’s.

                  Mostly ignored in this mess is that the FBI had these laptops near the start of the House impeachment hearings and did not provide them.

                  It is not known at this moment whether Schiff or other democrats knew about them – if they did, they should be drummed out of office.

                  I would note that the articles of impeachment assert that there was no evidence of anykind that justified Trump’s request,

                  That was false at the time – it is CLEARLY false now.

                  Once again as with the “collusion delusion” – you have been played, you have been lied to – by the left, the media, the democrats.

                  House democrats voted to impeach a president based on a FALSE allegation.

                  We also have the FBI once again protecting Obama, Biden and the democrats from their own misconduct – in the midst of an election.

                  “I already responded to your reading of an apparent misspelling as correct, which makes grammatical hash of an otherwise sensible sentence.”

                  The problem you note is YOURS not mine. You conclude there is a spelling error (I presume you are claiming a tense error).
                  But contrary to your claim – changing the tense of the word you think is wrong is what makes a hash of the sentence.

                  Your argument boils down to the nonsense that because the author is not a native english speaker we MUST reconstruct the sentence in the way that is most favorable to you – which is still not very favorable.
                  Regardless, that argument is false.

                  “No, obviously, thanking someone for an opportunity to meet doesn’t imply there has already been a meeting.”
                  Read the sentence – as written it does, further that is NOT your only problem.

                  “I shouldn’t have to explain these simple points to you, but you clearly are unwilling to question the transparent propaganda you rely on, so others have to help you. I hope you’re grateful.”

                  You keep claiming this is transparent propoganda – By who ?

                  Are you still claiming that this is Russian Disinformation ? There is not a Russian in 100 miles of this.

                  It appears to be Hunter’s signature on the receipt. Hunter’s lawyer contacted Mr. Paul to get the laptops back.

                  The Biden’s are not denying that the laptop is Hunter’s.

                  Are you saying that the Burisma Exec sent this email to Hunter so that he could blackmail Biden years later when he ran for President ?

                  How is this propoganda ?

                  ARe you claiming that the laptop contents are real – but this email is not ?

                  BTW – this email is part of a chain, and I beleive other parts are now public.

                  Please explain your “Transparent propoganda” claim ?

                  How is it propoganda ? And whose propoganda is it ?

                  You are aware that much of the contents of the laptop have been confirmed – that other emails have been verified by those who sent or received them ?

                  I understand this is information that you do not like.

                  All that is relevant is its TRUTH.

                  I honestly do not give a $h!t about your “transparent propoganda” claim. ‘

                  Though there is not a russian anywhere near this – I do not care if it is the product of Russian Hacking.
                  I do not care if it helps Trump or Biden or hurts them.

                  I care about the truth, not idiotic claims that it is “transparent propoganda”

    3. Sanpete:

      I’ve been commenting on these threads for close to 3 years. For a long period, Professor Turley kept a safe distance from Trump. His columns routinely acknowledged when Trump made false or irresponsible statements. Turley would also note when Trump’s agenda was legally dubious.

      But Turley’s seemingly objective columns ended the day Trump appointed William Barr as Attorney General. That day Turley wrote a column informing us that Barr was the best man Trump could have possibly selected. Turley praised Barr as a pillar of legal prudence while offering that Barr was a very dear friend. From that point onward, Turley rarely criticized Trump. Instead Turley’s columns became increasingly partisan; as though he was coordinating with Fox News!

      This year the pandemic threw Turley off-balance. The professor was smart enough to sense that Trump’s denial of the pandemic was a disaster in the making. So Turley decided to ignore any news developments concerning Donald Trump. Instead Turley’s columns have leaned heavily on two themes: ‘Free Speech (for conservatives) and ‘Tyranny From The Left’. Turley has stuck to these themes so rigidly the columns have a paint-by-number quality. Typically they concern universities where conservatives are the ‘victims of liberal tyranny’.

      Sanpete you should know the Moderator of these threads is a ‘severe conservative’. Pro-Trump commenters are perfectly free to abuse the liberal commenters as much as possibly. No insult or smear is abusive enough! But if liberals dare to return the abuse, said Moderator will delete their posts and block their email address. The Pro-Trump commenters know very well they have the Moderator’s support. Which emboldens them to be even ‘more’ abusive!

      One last thing to note: This blog has, what is essentially, an ‘official troll’ who comments around the clock using endless names. His most common handles are: ‘Estovir’, ‘Rhodes’, ‘James’, ‘Em’, Princess Trohar’, ‘MoFo’, ‘Publinca’, ‘Calvin&Hobbs’ and countless one-day-only names. Said troll seeks to place himself at the center of ‘every’ discussion so that every thread quite literally revolves around his posts. He is an aggressively ignorant Trumper whose opinions consistently have a cynically stupid quality. Said troll actively seeks to discourage intelligent discussions. The last thing said troll wants is are educated commenters.

      And finally you might note I am commenting as ‘Anonymous’. The reason is quite simple: ‘Any name I attempt to use will be smeared with the most abusive of lies’. That’s how it goes on Johnathan Turley’s blog.

      1. Thanks for your considered views on what’s going on here. It’s certainly possible for personal associations to color how people see things.

        In this case, if Turley had stuck to his concerns about liberal tyranny, as he sees it, without opining on the facts of the Biden news, he might have done better. But I suppose he felt he needed to support his premise that this is a big story that should be treated that way.

        1. Gray Anonymous, you’re correct. Turley had to address this story. It was essentially ‘requested’ by every commenter! And to his credit Turley hasn’t gone too far on The Post story. He knows the evidence isn’t there.

          Yet Turley might comment on that ‘lack of evidence’. It would be an interesting column. But Turley chose not to go that route.

          1. The evidence isn’t there ?

            This from the same people who bought the collusion delusion ?

            What is your standard of proof ?

            I am after one you apply consistently.

            This story is a really big deal. As I have noted over and over – there is no middle ground here.

            The evidence presidented is either authentic or a fraud.

            There is not an intermediate case.

            Pretty much no matter what SOMEONE must go to jail for this.

            If this evidence is forged or fraudulent – those responsible should go to jail.

            If this evidence is not – the Biden’s should go to jail.

            Standing alone – this is pretty damining and the provenance of the evidence is pretty sound.
            Given how strongly it correlates to the other evidence on Biden Ukraine corruption the odds of its being a fraud are near zero.

            But go ahead and refute it.

            I will make this really easy – if this stuff is forged, and anyone afiliated with Trump had anything to do with it they should go to jail.
            If it is not – if these are Hunter Biden’s documents – Joe Biden should go to jail.

            There is not a middle ground.

            And everyone who voted to impeach Trump should lose the current election.

            One way or another this is a massive fraud on the american people.

            One way or another they are being lied to.

        2. Why can’t Turley opine on the Biden story ?

          This is a legal blog and the evidence strongy indicates criminal corruption by the Biden family.

          Why should Turley or ANYONE be quiet about that ?

          I am interested in the TRUTH.

          If that Damn’s Trump – so be it.
          If that Damn’s Biden – so be it.

          We have listened to 4 years of Trump’s corrupt – “wheres the beef ?”

          We impeached Trump for asking for an investigation of the corruption of the Biden’s.

          It is now Innarguable that request was legitimate.

          Just as there are only two possibilities – these documents are authentic and Biden is incredibly brazenly corrupt, or they are not and someone has committed an incredible fraud and forgery.

          There are only two possibilities regarding impeachment – that Trump’s conduct was wrong, or that the house and senate democrats are politically corrupt too.

          If Biden is corrupt – it is Trump’s JOB to investigate.
          And it sure looks like Biden is corrupt.

      2. Absolutely Turley has been slowly becoming less hostile to Trump.

        That is natural when over time on issue after issue we find the media and the left lying repeatedly.

        When you cry wolf too many times – people start to disbeleive you.

        Turley has been slowly losing respect for the left.

        That is how it is supposed to work.

        We do not require equal respect for every hair brained idea their is. We only deny you the right to silence others.

        But it is reasonable – expected to over time lose respect for the oppinions of those who have constantly lied.

        That has not only occured with Turley bur many many others. Many prominient legal scholars who started anti-trump are now grasping that the Obama Biden administration was the most corrupt in US history.

        Biden is not entitled to respect.

        At this time the burden of proof is on Biden and the left – there was more than enough evidence of Biden’s corruption BEFORE this.

        The likelyhood that it is all manufactured disinformation is ZERO.

        Turley is starting to grasp that the claims that Trump’s fixation on Biden in the Ukraine was debunked conspiracy theories is a LIE,
        The the press never took a serious look and just pronounced Biden golden. But the evidence has been piling up and is harder and harder to ignore.

        There is likely enough to convict the Biden clann at a criminal trial now.

    4. You communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are going to win in a huuuuuuge landslide.

      Why are you all so frantic?

  7. Trump supporters at Michigan rally chant “lock her up” toward Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and Trump responds “lock ’em all up”.

    It’s just 10 days after 13 men were arrested in a domestic terrorist plot to kidnap her. Gov. Whitmer responded, “This is exactly the rhetoric that has put me, my family, and other government officials’ lives in danger while we try to save the lives of our fellow Americans. It needs to stop.”

    At yesterday’s rally, Trump said, “Lock up the Bidens, lock up Hillary” and led the crowd in a chant of “lock them up”.

    Time & again he demonstrates how easy it would be to get 30% or so of the American people to support a full-blown dictatorship, gleefully.

    1. “From a person familiar with the matter”. The Chinese government is trying to interfere in an American election to help the Joe Biden Campaign.

    2. Oh. Trump is a Russian stooge would have no influence on some wacko. Remember the guy they caught trying to break into the White House compound. Remember the guy who shot Representative Scalise.

        1. Your original premise was that Trump caused them to do it. It could be just as easy to assume that rhetoric from the left caused the attempted breach of the White House and the Scalise shooting. The Scalise shooting was by a Bernie Bro. People can be inflamed on both sides. Direct responsibility should not be attributed to Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump for what some wackos decide to do. There were 13 people who hatched this plot. How many ANTIFA members destroyed downtown Seatle and the Democratic Governor stood by and let it happen. There were two people who were shot and killed in the CHAZ zone. Now thats a direct responsibility link. Controlling some unknown wacko is impossible. The allowing of riotes to continue where people were killed was optional and they could have been stopped.

          1. There was an actual shooting of the Republicans Congressional baseball team.

            We do not know how serious these guys were.
            We have seen this in other FBI cases. They have tried and sometimes Jailed islamic teens for saying stupid things and buying guns.

            The evidence I have seen makes a prima fasci case and justifies the charges.
            It is not enough for a conviction. It is proof these men MIGHT have been dangerous. They also MIGHT have been stupid and shot off their mouths.

    3. What are we up to, 4-5 of those in the group are ring leaders in the FBI up to their same ole BS crimes to divert attention from crimes?

      So the FBI found Commie Dems that hate Trump & set them up but Comey, McCabe, Hillary, Obama, Biden & all their American Hating Scum Mafia Walks while selling out the USA to the Chicom/etc.., for decades.

      The Dogs didn’t bark because the ones committing the Treasonous Sedition/Espionage against USA were most likely the dogs owners.

      Oh! Look over there, Squirrel!

      Maybe they should get a new script writer?

    4. The “plot” against Whitmer was BECAUSE she had made herself dictator. We are 10 months after the first IS C19 cases – there is no legitimate reason for the edicts of a single person to function as the law of the land for that long imposed on everyone alike.

      In our country we have congress and legislature to make law. Governors and presidents do not have the power to make law.

      If you are worried about Trump as a tyrant – you are clueless.

      Even if you count hitler and musolini as somehow on the right (they were both socialists) 90-95% of all deaths by tyrants in the 20th century were from LEFT WING TYRANTS. If you properly identify Hitler and Musollini as on the left – it is almost 100%.

      Please identify any actual right wing authoritarians anywhere ever ?

      And Trump is not actually on the right. politically he is moderate. He supprts Keynesian stimulus and infrustructure programs that have been universal failures.

      What edict of Trump’s has there been so far ?

      How did Trump take away your freedom ?

      In what way is Trump totalitarian – actual acts please.

      Gov. Whitmer is totalitarian. But Trump is not.

      1. Amazing. In theory I know how emotion affects thought, rules thought, but to see up close the way it eradicates ties to reality is always a shock somehow. Very dangerous, but life probably wouldn’t work as well without that tendency, thus the way it is.

        1. “Amazing. In theory I know how emotion affects thought, rules thought, but to see up close the way it eradicates ties to reality is always a shock somehow. Very dangerous, but life probably wouldn’t work as well without that tendency, thus the way it is.”

          Back to typical leftist nonsense about presuming that you know what others are feeling – or whether it is relevant.

          The discussion was simple.

          Whitmer’s actions were outside the michigan constitution – so said every single member of the michigan supreme court – democrat and republican. The only spit was on the remedy.

          As Turley notes in another article the Michigan supreme court provided 60 difference cases supporting their conclusion.

          The fact that Whitmer went far outside her authority is not an emotional response it is a FACT.

          As to these purported conspirator’s the question is NOT whether they were justified in beleiving Whitmer was authoritarian and abusing individual rights, the question is whether their actions in response were justified as well as specifically what acts they did take.

          There is no doubt they “trained with guns” – I know this is hard for the left to understand but hundreds of millions of americans “train with guns”. It also appears they discussed kidnapping Whitmer even making some plans. It is unclear whether they would ever have gone forward. That will be an important question for a Jury.

          There is no doubt about Thomas Hodgkinson – he actually shot members of congress. I am glad the FBI thwarted these people before they did anything. But to convict you most prove they would have done something. I am not interested in the FBI convicting people for what they fantasize about – otherwise half the left would be in jail for conspiring to murder Trump.

          1. Just amazing.

            A hint for when you decide to try to join the real world, should that time ever come: there’s a lot of space between exceeding one’s authority based on a poor reading of the law and dictatorship, let alone totalitarianism.

            And yes, some of Trump’s actions, or attempts at action, have also been found to exceed his authority. It’s not that unusual.

            1. “A hint for when you decide to try to join the real world, should that time ever come: there’s a lot of space between exceeding one’s authority based on a poor reading of the law and dictatorship, let alone totalitarianism.”

              The gulf you claim is quite small. Regardless, we have specifics.

              This is not merely about a “poor reading of the law” – Though the Michigan Supreme Court has rejected Whitmer’s reading of the law – that alone is not what distinguishes authoritarians. The leaders of the USSR operated within the law. Those in Hong Kong are right now opperating within the law.

              Whitmer was infringing on individual liberty without justification.

              One of the things that came out of the PA case – and I beleive also the Whitmer case, is that these governor’s were NOT acting based on actual “science” but quite arbitrarily. Yes they were relying on “expert oppinions” – but those of you on the left do not seem to grasp that an opinion is Neither a fact, nor science. Science is evidence based and replicable. It is not fear based, it is not speculation based, it is not opinion based.

              To use force to infringe on the liberty of others without justification – is authoritarian.

              The legal issues you fixate on – merely make it worse. A democracy can be authoritarian – and actual democracy is authoritarian.
              But we have courts and legislatures – not as a Guarantee but as atleast a speed bump against authoritarianism.

              We have the complex process of making law through legislation and the executive and ultimately even the judiciary to reduce the risk of authoritarianism – it is unfortunately not a guarantee.

              Nor is the question whether whitmer exceeded her authority – as wrong as that alone is.
              It is whether she infringed on the liberty of others without justification – and that she clearly did.

              The only reason the alleged conduct of the “wolverines” was not justified is because other potential remedies still existed.

              Most of us grasp that it is legitimate to revolt against totalitarian regimes.

              “And yes, some of Trump’s actions, or attempts at action, have also been found to exceed his authority. It’s not that unusual.”

              Any yet you are burning the country down over those alleged excesses ?

              As noted above there is a catagorical difference.

              Please note a specific actions of Trump’s that infringed on the liberty of american citizens.

              You seem to have this odd notion that government can do whatever it pleases – so long as there is a law,

              Need I remind you that slavery was the law of the land for nearly 100 years ?

              This is the scope of legitimate government.

              “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it”

              Authoritarian govenrment infringes on our rights – whether it follows the law or not.



    This week, the New York Post published a story based on what it says are emails — “smoking gun” emails, it calls them — sent by a Ukrainian business executive to the son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. The story fits snugly into a narrative from President Trump and his allies that Hunter Biden’s zealous pursuit of business ties abroad also compromised the former vice president. Yet this was a story marked more by red flags than investigative rigor.

    To start, the emails have not been verified as authentic. They were said to have been extracted from a computer assumed — but not proven — to have belonged to the younger Biden. They were said to have been given to the Post by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who is known for making discredited claims about the Bidens.

    The venue is also suspect. The pro-Trump New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a steady supporter of the president despite recently casting doubt on Trump’s reelection prospects. The lead reporter was a former producer for Sean Hannity, Trump’s best friend on his favorite news network, Fox News, also controlled by the Murdochs. And the story asserted the existence of a meeting absent any documentation that it actually occurred. (The Biden campaign says the tabloid never sought comment on the veracity of the claims.)

    The context also screams for caution: U.S. officials say Russian disinformation campaigns have sought to keep Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine in the public eye. According to The Washington Post, intelligence officials warned the White House last year that Russian operatives had sought to give misinformation to Giuliani to be used against the Bidens. And NBC is now reporting that the FBI is investigating whether the material in the New York Post story originated in a foreign power’s disinformation campaign.

    Working backward from the article’s account. The New York Post secured them from a copy of a laptop’s hard drive given to the paper by Giuliani, after learning of their existence from former Trump campaign CEO and political adviser Steve Bannon.

    The laptop had been taken to a repair shop in Delaware; the shop’s owner appears to have reviewed its contents and given it to the FBI, after making a copy and delivering that to Giuliani’s attorney. The New York Post reported that the computer repair specialist “couldn’t positively identify the customer as Hunter Biden, but said the laptop bore a sticker from the Beau Biden Foundation, named after Hunter’s late brother.” So, it’s not clear who brought it in.

    Giuliani has repeatedly amplified discredited claims, to the point that Fox News’ internal research team warned the network’s journalists against relying upon him. Among the sources Giuliani turned to was a man whom the Trump administration’s Treasury Department has designated as a Russian agent. Last month, Treasury officials said Andrii Derkach has pushed disinformation in Ukraine to spur unfounded corruption investigations and media coverage in hopes of damaging Biden and influencing the 2020 race.

    Post deputy political editor Emma-Jo Morris’ reports on Biden this past week constitute the sum total of her professional bylines. Prior to joining the Post in early spring, Morris’ most prominent media job involved her three years and eight months as a producer for Hannity, the Fox News star who is one of the president’s closest advisers. Morris did not reply to requests for comment sent to her social media accounts.

    On Fox, Hannity repeatedly has suggested Joe Biden acted improperly in Ukraine. Let us remember that Trump’s demand for investigations of the Bidens’ actions in Ukraine formed the foundation of the president’s impeachment by the House of Representatives last year. Hannity actively sought to discredit those who offered damning testimony against the president.

    The New York Post’s story and its ensuing allegations against Hunter Biden, based on the same cache of material, has propelled its corporate cousin as well. As the days tick down toward Election Day, Fox News took inspiration from the tabloid’s reporting to unleash a fusillade against the former vice president across its most watched shows — like the grand finale of a fireworks display. None of that sound and fury requires the rest of the press to accept those claims as true.

    Edited From: “Analysis: Questionable ‘N.Y. Post’ Scoop Driven By Ex-Hannity Producer And Giuliani”

    Today’s NPR

      The company that set up Hillary’s computer was Crowdstrike. The president of Crowdstrike testified under oath to the Congress that Hillary’s computer was not hacked by the Russians. His testomony is in the public record. The leftist press is still pushing this Russiia story because they know that most people didn’t have the time to watch the testomony. Every time any negitive information comes out about the Democrats they role out “Old Reliable Russia did it”

        1. An assessment is an opinion.

          His actual testimony is that he does not and can not know.

          That should not be surprising. It is not possible to know. Pretty much everyone in IT security knows that you can not establish the source of a hack forensically.

          BTW Crowdstrike’s “assessments” have a notoriously bad record.

            1. 1). The Mueller report never proved anything of consequence,
              and most of its specualtion is bunk.

              Further Mueller is irrelevant to the DNC emails – Mueller did not “investigate” – Crowdstrike did.

              The SC can not through analysis come to conclusions the forensics do not (and can not) support.

              You can not reach the source of a hack forensically. This is well known in IT secutiry – no lawyer can change the technical realities.

      1. TIT – He did NOT testify that it was not hacked by Russians.

        He testified that it was not possible to identify the source of the hack.
        That is just basic modern security tech. There is no forensic means to identify the source of any hack.
        Not only can the source be faked easily – even script kiddies can manage to fake a source.
        But it is impossible to tell an actual error from a false flag.

        If we are going to call out the lies of the left we must be accurate ourselves.

        He also testified that he had no evidence the emails were exfiltrated by the hack.

    2. Are the emails authentic – that is a valid question.

      It is not one that is all that hard to address. Making up 10’s of thousands of emails without making any errors is damn difficult.

      But go ahead and check.

      I would further note that the PRESS (badly) disputes the authenticity of the emails – thus far the Biden campaign has not.
      The Biden campaign has focussed on the accuracy – not the authenticity.

      Are you saying the photos of Hunter passed out with a crack pipe are frauds ?

      Regardless, I am happy to hear FACTS to challenge the authenticity of the emails.

      But we have an established chain of custody – from Hunter Biden to the NY Post that has not been challenged, and not a russian in sight.

      Regardless – how about facts, not speculation.

    3. No Guliani is not “know to have made discredited claims about the bidens”.

      Guiliani’s claims are supported by:

      Communications from Hunter Biden’s lawyers.
      US State department documents.
      Documents from the Ukrainian PG.
      Depositions by an assortment of Ukrainians including Shokin.
      Bank records from Rumania and other countries.

      In fact some of the house impeachment testimony confirms elements of Guilliani’s claims.

      And finally this information corroborates the rest of Guiliani’s claims.

      Ultimately either you have an incredibly sophisticated frame job that is likely impossible to do to this degree of consistency.
      Or you have the truth.

    4. Absolutely we want to remember Trump’s request for investigations of the Biden’s.

      Either a massive amount of documentation from myriads of sources confirms that the VP Biden sold his office.
      Or Trump has constructed the most amazing fraud from myriads of different sources.

      There is not really an alternate choice.

      It is not just these dcouments that damn Biden – though they are sufficient alone, but many other documents from other sources.

      If they are correct – which is highly likely – Then Trump is completely exonerated – as is Giuliani.

      If not they are engaged in the greatest act of political fraud ever – one that is near certain to get caught.

      So PLEASE – look at all of this. Authenticate it. Verify what can be verified. Do what the FBI SHOULD have done with the Steele Dossier.

      But Do these things BEFORE you start ranting as you are.

      Don;t just stick your head in the sand and risk voting for someone who if this is true has sold out his country for 50 years.

    5. In this entire post of yours – is there ACTUAL evidence that these documents are not authentic ? Or inaccurate ?

      There is lots of inuendo, character assassination, faux guilt by association, ….

      But I see no FACTS that actually undermine any of these “allegations”

      You are challenging the credibility of Guiliani, Trump, Fox, and NY Post.

      What you fail to grasp is that you have actually created a rare binary issue.

      There are only two possibilities:

      The documents are authentic – in which case all the people you have insulted are credible, and all those that have defamed them in the past and present are not credible.

      Or the documents are not authentic – in which case Guliani, etc are far WORSE than you claim.

      So the authenticity is of great importance.

      You also attacked the authenticity of the other records Guliani has produced.

      That is state department records, foreign bank records, sworn testimony, OG records from Ukraine.
      Records from Hunter Biden’s lawyers in numerous lawsuits.

      ALL of these are either mostly FALSE or mostly TRUE. There is not any middle ground.

      In the real world when many documents from many different sources fit together and agree they are highly likely correct – authentic.

      But if you can prove otherwise – PLEASE DO!!!

    During the townhall, Joe Biden clamed that the boilermakers union endorsed him. You can go to the link above to see if he is telling the truth.
    The boilermakers union has 50,000 members and would be an important endorsement if he got it. Hey Joe, I think you got 1973 mixed up with 2020.

  11. We must condemn the persecution of General Flynn by the hyper partisan Judge Emmett Sullivan every single day and never allow those of his ilk to sit on any bench anywhere. I have zero faith in the entire American Legal system. Sullivan has single handedly shown there are two standards of justice in America. He is no ACB!

    1. There is one thing missing from the response to the New York Post story. A glaring question with the glare of a thousand suns. Where is the denial by Joe or Hunter telling us that the emails are not Hunter’s emails. Just say it Joe!!! Just say it Hunter!!! Bloomberg has reported that the FBI is looking to see if it’s Russian interferance. The Bloomberg source is “A person familiar with the matter” Let that sink in. The FBI has made no statement on the matter. “The Russians did it” has used up all it’s milage. All the mainstream media are running with this Russia story based on “A person familiar with the matter”. They are doing everything they can to keep their base in line. If they had a credible response you would see it. They just write another chapter to there ongoing fairy tale. Gather around little children and I’ll tell you a story true.

      1. The FBI normally doesn’t make statements on investigations unless and until they result in charges.

        Biden already said it was a smear campaign.

        1. The main point is why won’t Joe and Hunter directly deny that the emails are Hunter’s. Then when confronted, Joe wouldn’t answer. He tried to shift the blame to the reporter and his opponent. His response to the reporter was advisarial. How dare you ask me that question was his attitude. I did not get the media’s interpretation of what he said and did. I actually watched it.

        2. Who is “a person familiar with the matter”. The FBI director might want to know who this leaker is. Maybe you can write a story and just say the source is “a person familiar with the matter” and the rubes out their will beleive every word. I’ve had enough fun for one night.

  12. Q: How often do nations provide multi-million dollar checks to crack-heads who have been fired by and removed from the U.S. Navy?

    A: As often as they can buy influence and favors from his father.

    Q: How often do nations provide multi-billion dollar checks to corporations who employ crack-heads who have been fired by and removed from the U.S. Navy?

    A: As often as they can buy influence and favors from the father of the corporation’s “influential” employee?

    1. Joe Biden has released all his tax returns and is not constantly in court trying to keep them covered up.

        1. What is Hunter’s source for god awful crack pipes? I mean, really, cant his Daddy afford better pipes?

          What is Joe hiding?

      1. Joe Biden probably isn’t reporting any money he received as a pass through from his son or that his son is “holding” for him. If the emails are correct Hunter ‘has’ to “give part (half) of his salary to POP” (and I don’t think he meant Corn Pop).

      2. If Joe wants to release his tax returns – that is his business.

        My Taxes, Trump’s taxes, anyone else’s taxes are not your business.

        In fact it is a crime to provide tax information without the taxpayers permission.

        It is even a crime to publish tax returns without permission.

      3. What does fabricated tax returns do for anyone ?. You see china joe is dealing with laundered cash …laundered by his boy hunter. Joe feels the need to buy another mansion you know, as three or more is not enough for him.
        It’s patently obvious by the deer in the headlights reaction of the china biden front that this caught them flat footed. Where there is smoke there is fire…… and judging by the total lack of credible response of china joe et al…there is a lot of fire !.

  13. Rudy Giuliani says there’s a 50-50 chance he worked with a Russian spy to dig dirt on the Bidens, then spouts an antisemitic trope about Soros. He also confirms that Trump was briefed on the “hard drive” materials, including the sexually explicit & drug related content, prior to the NY Post stories dropping, and he gave the greenlight to getting it out there ASAP.

    1. There is nothing wrong with working with a Russian Spy – Clinton did it.

      What is wrong is when the US government starts criminal investigations based ONLY on uncorroberated disinformation from a russian spy.

        1. Why do I have to prove to you things that are readily available public knowledge.

          1). Steele was determined by the FBI in 2015 to be an unwitting source of Russian disinformation.
          2). Steele’s primary subsource was determined by the FBI tears before to be a likely Russian spy.
          3). Clinton paid for the Steele Dossier – the product of a Russian dupe and a likely Russian spy.

          This is not illegal.

          1. Thanks for admitting that Clinton didn’t work with a Russian spy. She’s several degrees of separation from one.

            1. Several degrees of separation do not change anything. Clinton did work with a Russian Spy – he was in here employ. His work was paid for by her. Numerous cuttouts do not save Mafia Don’s or drug dealers.

              Regardless, I have long ago made clear – Clintons Dossier actions were disturbing but legal – including working with a Russian Spy.

              Trump did not do any of the things that Clinton did, but had he done so – they would not have been illegal either.

              The morally ethically and legally bankrupt acts where the use of the Steele Dossier by the government to start a bogus investigation.

              That was incredibly corrupt much worse than Nixon.

              1. If several degrees of separation don’t count, then Trump has worked with a Russian spy too.

                  1. Trump paid Manafort, who donated sensitive campaign polling data to Kilimnik, a Russian spy, which were likely used by the Russian troll farms. Trump paid Roger Stone, who was later in touch with Wikileaks about the emails hacked by Russia. You think it’s better that Russian spies made illegal foreign campaign contributions?

                    1. Hillary’s payment was meant to be divided up by those involved including the spy.

                      Trump’s payments were not.

                      There is proof of the former but there is no proof Trump did the same, only the unfounded accusations of a person who is not credible and posts under a generic anonymous.

                    2. Manafort did not know that Klominick was a russian Spy. The information Manafort provided was not a government secret – it was his information and he was free to share it as he pleased. Kliminick was also a State Department source.

                      There exists no evidence that Kliminick shared the data with anyone. Though had he done so that would be legal.

                      Given that you do not have a crime and do not know what happened to the data and that the impact of the Russian “troll farms” was non-existant – what is it you think you have ?

                      Stone was NOT in touch with Wikileaks – you really pay no attention.

                      Stone’s only source was Randy Credico who testified that he did NOT pass any messages from Stone to Wikileaks and gave nothing to stone that was not public knowledge.

                      There remains today no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked much less hacked by Russia.

                      Wikileaks is NOT Russia – for all your nonsense. They have been exposing government and business corruption arround the world for decades – including that of Russia.

                      So lets rephrase your Stone claim.

                      Stone had no access to wikileaks. His actual source, did not pass on anything from Stone, and Wikileaks is not Russia.

                      Wikileaks like the Washington post publishes embarrasing secrets of the corrupt.

                      I guess you think that Wapo should ha been jailed for publishing the pentagon papers ?

                      Aparently you think journalism is illegal if it embarrasses the left.

                    3. The DNC email leak would have been a yawn but for the misconduct by the DNC it exposed.

                      Purportedly the RNC was similarly hacked – but RNC emails showing Republicans trying to tank Trump would not have been a big story after Trump won the GOP nod.

                1. Natalia was not a “spy” – she was a russian lawyer. She was openly selling dirt to Trump Jr, that turned out to be useless crap, and then wasted 15min on international adoption.

                  If Meeting with Russian’s is a crime – the Clinton’s would be in jail for life.

                  Get a clue what a Spy is.

                  Prof. Mifsud – probably a spy.
                  Stephen Halper – Spy
                  Azra Turk – Spy.
                  Carter Page – US Spy – spying on Russians, not Russian Spy.
                  Steele – Spy master.
                  Stelle’s source – Spy.
                  Natalia – Not a Spy – a lawyer.
                  Kliminick -Russian Spy and US state Department Spy.

                2. Did Trump take money from Russians in return for the corrupt use of his powers as president ?

                  That is the accusation these emails and texts make of Biden.

  14. After the election of Harris-Biden, America will be subsumed by its mortal enemies, China et al.

    Harris, Biden, the mainstream media (MSM) and social media platforms will have been corrupting an election “…adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

    The MSM, social media platforms, Harris and her fellow traveler, Biden, will be guilty of treason, election fraud, corruption and manipulation et al.

    These parties should be immediately injuncted, perp-walked and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for depriving citizens of a fair and impartially conducted election process, including nullifying legislation establishing Tuesday, one day, as election day by compelling illegal, multi-day, vote-by-mail elections, in order to facilitate election fraud and ballot harvesting, and for treason.

    52 U.S. Code § 20511. Criminal penalties

    A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office—
    (1) knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for—
    (A) registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to register or vote;
    (B) urging or aiding any person to register to vote, to vote, or to attempt to register or vote; or
    (C) exercising any right under this chapter; or
    (2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—
    (A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or
    (B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,

    shall be [Drawn and Quartered] for treason as adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

  15. Turley said, “These emails however, if true, would contradict Joe Biden’s past statements of his lack of knowledge or involvement.”

    Can anyone explain what Turley might be thinking here? What JB statement do they contradict, and how?

    1. If Biden, Obama, Hillary corruption and crime is proven for the billionth time, what will the prize be, whatever is behind Curtain Three?

      “If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Joke Biden.

      “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing,” Lisa Page, FBI paramour of Peter Strzok.

      “What? Like with a cloth or something?” “I don’t know how it works digitally at all,” Hillary Clinton.

      1. The comments section here is a real zoo. If anyone has a serious response to the question I asked, please let me know.

        1. If Joe Biden flatout lied about not knowing anything about his son’s foreign business dealings, when evidence shows that not only did Joe Biden know about it, he was IN ON IT, does that make it a problem, or nah?


          It is a problem. The big question that reporters should be asking, point blank is: Did Hunter Biden introduce that Ukrainian businessman to his vice president father?

          Joe Biden needs to answer this question. His campaign has already suggested there may have been some kind of informal off-the-official-schedule meeting.

          “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Joe Biden said in September 2019.

          The New Yorker reported in July 2019 that Hunter recalled, his father only discussed Burisma with him once: ‘Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’”

          Seems there is some ‘splaining for Joe Biden to do.


          “Dear Hunter,” the executive, Vadym Pozharskyi, wrote, “Thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure.”

          Did the meeting take place? Any response Joe? Other than claiming this is Russian disinformation?


          Politico reported: “Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule. But they said any encounter would have been cursory. Pozharskyi did not respond to a request for comment.”

          1. Again, if anyone has a serious response to the question I actually asked, please let me know.

            1. Um, did you not read the response to your question above? Your sarcastic dismissal of the detailed response says more about you than anything else since you clearly can’t follow the logic and the connecting of the dots.

              1. Please point out what JB said that’s contradicted by anything in that “detailed response.”

                It’s been widely and repeatedly explained in the media for those with reading trouble that the language of the email quoted doesn’t imply any meeting took place.

                Even if it had implied that, and there were a meeting, it wouldn’t imply JB knew the relation of his son to the person he was meeting, that he talked to his son about it, that anything substantive about Burisma was discussed, etc.

                1. SP I am not especially interested in your micro parsing of the email(s), Documents.

                  The questions here are trivial – are these documents authentic, and accurate ?
                  If that is the case – The entire Biden family has been engaged in selling the office of the Vice President and that of the Senate before.
                  You can argue minutia – that does not matter. I have not BTW seen this nonsense in the media that the letter does not demonstrate a meeting.

                  The mdeia has focusing on these claims:

                  Joe Biden’s calendar does not list the meeting.

                  There is some nefarious and unspecified connection to Russia that should cause you to disbeleive these emails and documents.
                  i.e. it is all “russian disinformation”

                  Let’s address these. The Burisma meeting is NOT the only JB meeting with a Hunter Biden foreign Business partner that is documented.

                  Are you saying that NONE of these meetings occured ?

                  There is no means to parse the email to get past the fact that the Burisma #3 was happy that the VP was likely to be acting to help Burisma.

                  Hunter Biden claimed to family that Joe was taxing him 50% of his income. What for ?

                  All these documents corroborate and are corroborated by prior documents from Ukraine, from Hunter Biden’s lawyer’s, from court testimony, from FOIA requests of State department documents.

                  You have everything short of video of what was going on.

                  If this is a Russian disinformation plot – it is HUGE and involves multiple banks, governments, our own state department and numerous actors in the US.

                  It might be possible for you and the media to delay the confrontation of the american people with the reality of this sufficient to get past the election.

                  But the fact is that the Obama administration was the most politically corrupt in US history.

                  Hillary and Joe were selling their office. The IRS, CIA, FBI, DOJ were being politically weaponized in ways that Nixon only dreamed of.

                    1. I am now aware that you will not read them even though they are short and repeatedly provided to you.

                      I care what they actually say. I do not care what you struggle to bend them into.

                      Honestly the degree of willful blindness on your part is astonishing.

                    2. Something I’ve noticed with hyperpartisans of all kinds is a lack of any sense of irony. Those able to see the irony where it exists in their own words aren’t able to sustain hyperpartisanship.

                    3. What I have noticed – as have many many others – is that the left has no sense of humor.

                      Comedy is almost dead – make a joke and you will be cancelled.

                      That is an issue exclusive to the left.

                      It is also true of socialist regimes.

                    4. That’s hilariously ironic, given the general politics of comedy these days, and the very vigorous cancel culture on the right.

                      What you may be thinking of is liberal complaints about racist humor and the like. Not much patience with that.

                2. “It’s been widely and repeatedly explained in the media for those with reading trouble that the language of the email quoted doesn’t imply any meeting took place.”

                  Clearly define “media”, Sanpete.

                  The only members of the MSM who have had access to all of the emails to date is the NYPost and Fox News.

                  So your feeble question concerning what has been “explained in the media”, is bogus.

                  1. Huh? It doesn’t take access to all the material to notice that the language of the so-called “smoking gun” email doesn’t actually say there was a meeting, that it could have been about a future meeting that may or may not have come about.

                    1. ” language of the so-called “smoking gun” ”

                      Rhodes, it seems as I think you too recognize that Sanpete’s arguments all have to do with the manipulation of words and saying nothing, no logic, no fact.

                      Let me repeat the words for Sanpete and include his last 5 words that are so important:

                      “Thank you for inviting me to D.C. and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together”

                      “I could come to you office … on my way to airport. “ (Spelling and grammar errors kept as they were written.)

                    2. Again, Allan, repeating your claim doesn’t improve it.

                      Again, nothing in the email, including the final words, implies a meeting has already happened. Indeed, it might have been supposed to happen that morning, after the email was sent, as should have occurred to you. Whether it did or not we presently have no way to know, no matter how certain you feel about it in your hyperpartisan heart.

                    3. Sanpete, It seems you have a lack of ability understanding that nothing in life is 100%. We accept near 100% as the truth. You turn that almost none existent number and with words to make an argument that tomorrow the sun will fall and hit someone on the head. Life doesn’t work that way if one wishes to be a source of credible information and opinion.

                    4. Allan, you’re the one who expressed absolute, i.e. 100%, belief in your view. Now you hedge, at least, but still not in a realistic way.

                      You still have no rational response to what I said, which remains very plainly true. It’s not about some barely possible event, it’s about an event that’s not at all unlikely and perfectly consistent with the entire text of the email. Nothing in the email makes it unlikely that the meeting was scheduled for later.

                    5. “Allan, you’re the one who expressed absolute, i.e. 100%, belief in your view.”

                      That is not true. That might have been your assumption but it was not based on fact rather your poor skills in mind reading..

                      “Nothing in the email makes it unlikely that the meeting was scheduled for later.”

                      You need to provide an argument to make what you say true. Even in a civil court of law your above statement would be wrong because all one needs to prove their case is 50%+. The world runs because we don’t use your type of ludicrous logic. We use fact, logic and common sense all lacking in that initial diatribe of yours.

                      If the below statement was brought to a court of law for judges or juries to determine only the outlying looney ideologues would agree with you. You reversed a statement and made a negative which throws some people off and maybe even throws yourself off. The question: Did Joe Biden meet with the individual? Your response tries to convince people the answer is no when the answer is clearly yes. I repeat the end of the email so others can judge for themselves: Yes or No. Did Joe Biden meet with the individual?

                      “Thank you for inviting me to D.C. and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together”

                      “I could come to you office … on my way to airport. “ (Spelling and grammar errors kept as they were written.)

                    6. SP, you’re the one who expressed absolute, i.e. 100%, belief in your view. Now you hedge, at least, but still not in a realistic way.

                      Absolutely it is possible that the email was about a future meeting.

                      It is also possible the moon will crash into the earth tomorow.

                      The least convoluted read of the email is that Hunter was being thanked for a meeting that already occured.

                      Regardless, the Biden Campaign has aknowledged the meeting MAY have taken place and we now have the Obama White House conferencing with Blue Star to arrange a Burisma Biden meeting.

                      There is not a way out of this that does not have Biden publicly lying.

                      There are few ways out of this that do not have Biden criminally corruptly selling influence.

                    7. Now you’re just denying stuff willy nilly. You said above “The final part makes it absolutely clear that the meeting had already taken place.” “Absolutely” is your word, not mind reading.

                      You misrepresent what I very plainly and simply said. I haven’t argued that JB didn’t have the meeting. I very clearly and simply pointed out that we don’t know, because the email is clearly consistent with the meeting being scheduled after it was written, a point you’re still trying to evade. This isn’t as hard to follow as you’re making it.

                    8. “Now you’re just denying stuff willy nilly. ”

                      That is insulting.

                      ““The final part makes it absolutely clear that the meeting had already taken place.” “Absolutely” is your word, not mind reading.”

                      You are data mining looking for a word to use to resurrect yourself. Based on what is known and the email in a criminal court of law that would be so. You will continue playing with words until you prove that it isn’t your lack of knowledge and fact but that a word used didn’t fit what in your mind was correct. Absolutely means without qualification and that is how I meant it. That you will argue that nothing is absolute and that sun can fall on your head tomorrow is just a way for you to use words instead of fact and logic. I can’t say this type of game you play can be called deceitful but it is getting awfully close.

                      The full statement under question follows. Though I believe it was clear based on the first two parts I affirm that I believe the third part makes it absolutely clear (if we use normal language and don’t have to explain that no one can prove the sun won’t fall on your head tomorrow.)

                      There are three parts to the email. The invite, the spending of time and then the goodbye. The final part makes it absolutely clear that the meeting had already taken place.

                      “Thank you for inviting me to D.C. and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together”

                      “I could come to you office … on my way to airport. “ (Spelling and grammar errors kept as they were written.)

                    9. Incredible. I’ve made my points as clear and simple as I think I can, so I’ll leave it at that. You can lead a person to reasons, but you can’t make them think.

                    10. You cannot use a word salad to prove facts wrong. You are left with blaming others for your faults and lack of accuracy.

                      ” I’ll leave it at that.”

                      That phrase unaccompanied was the smartest thing you have said to date

                    11. Wrong.

                      We have been over this.

                      No only are you wrong on the gramar but there are other sources including the Biden campaign atleast tepidly confirming the meeting.

                      How do you like being lided to by your hero’s ?

                  2. Biden has now admitted that there MAY have been a meeting.

                    SP is now being contradicted by her own heros.

                    And now the Obama WH had a conference call with Blue Star to setup the meeting.

          2. In 2016, when the NYT got one of Trump’s old tax returns, they had *no idea* who sent it or why. They still don’t know. But as 2-time Pulitzer winner David Barstow explained, they reported them because journalists don’t care who gave them *authentic docs:


            Michael Barbaro
            · Oct 4, 2016
            Why NYT’s David Barstow does not care who leaked us Trump’s tax return, or what the motivation was.

            1. Has the NYTimes been reporting the material that was on Hunter Biden’s computer?

              By the way, so far the tax returns released by the NYTimes were meaningless and the NYTimes purposefully misrepresented them.

              It must be nice to be able to only include in your world the things you like and exclude the rest.

              1. Allan, you only include in your world the things you like and exclude the rest. You always complain about others doing things you do.

                1. The fact that the NYTimes and WP published the Steele Dossier and supported its conclusions after the FBI knew it was false and the fact that the NYTimes and WP held back important information positive to Trump doesn’t bother you. The fact that the NYPost has been banned from Twitter doesn’t seem to bother you either. I’m not sure if there is a total ban at FB on the NYPost or just a partial one.

                  That is the type of exclusion you seem to favor. Then you deny anything that doesn’t come from the WP or NYTimes.

                  The extent of your blindness is quite clear. That makes you not credible.

                  1. Allan, you’re the one who isn’t credible. You consistently fail to back up your claims and make easily debunked claims like “the NYPost has been banned from Twitter” when hasn’t been banned.

                    1. Where are the posts after October 14th? You know the posts after they NYPost released the story on Hunter Biden’s laptop that Shows influence peddling and proves Joe Biden lied about Burisma and his son. It also shows mounting evidence that Joe Biden enriched himself and his family by peddling his influence.

                      Why is it you conveniently forgot the time frame? This proves once again you are not credible.

                    2. Links to The NY Post twitter account were blocked for hours in an effort to squelch this story.

                      Maybe Allan is guilty of imperfect precision. He is not however wrong.

                  2. What a dishonest person you are, Allan. You lied about Twitter banning the Post. I showed you they weren’t banned. Now you try to move the goalposts to the account being locked without ever admitting that you lied about them being banned, and then you try to paint me as lacking credibility. Are you too ignorant to know the difference between banning and locking?

                    Meanwhile, you still haven’t backed up your claims about The NY Times and the WP and now you add new claims that you don’t back up. You have no credibility because you don’t back up your claims and you try to blame others for your mistakes.

                    1. “What a dishonest person you are, Allan. You lied about Twitter banning the Post. I showed you they weren’t banned.”

                      You are just ignorant. Almost every one, if not everyone knows the Post was banned when the Biden computer information was released. Even Dorsey knows it. You showed me their Tweets before the banning. You are your usual deceitful self. Last time I looked the Post could not Tweet.

                      I used the term banning which was the term I saw in the news. Whether it is locking or banning the Post has been unable to Tweet. No goal posts were moved though you lie and say they were. The only thing you have added is the word locking instead of the word ban. So far this is the first time I have heard that word used. Maybe I didn’t notice before but it doesn’t change anything.

                      If locking is the appropriate term fine. It is unimportant for me to know the difference. I seldom bother with Twitter and find it much more important for you to learn that Manhattan is not a city. It is a borough of NYC.

                    2. Twitter blocked NY Post for several hours and continues to block links to its story.

                      Allan is correct. You are not.

                      I do not give a $hit if Allan’s choice of language is not precisely what you would have chosen.

                      Is there any difference between locked for several hours, blocked for several hours and banned for several hours.

                      The FACT is that the NY Post was CENSORED, and continues to be.

                      Twitter can not even consistently explain why.

                      We are told that it was because NY Post was publishing leaked or hacked content.

                      I assume they would have censored the Washington Post when they published the pentagon papers.
                      Regardless there is no evidence that the information was either leaked or hacked.

                      Hunter Biden provided the computers to a repair shop and refused to pay for them.
                      They were his property and he abandoned them. There is no hack, no leak, no theft.

                      There is a claim that this is all somekind of Russian disinformation – but no evidence of that, and no place in the chain of custody for that to occur.

                      Further the information is consistent with Information from Romanian banks, Ukrianinan court testimony, depositions, State Department correspondence acquired by FOIA requests,

                      All the stuff you have been calling a debunked russian conspiracy theory.

                      Those Russians – they are everywhere. For a declining power they somehow own a huge part of your mind.

                2. So what is allan missing ?

                  I keep asking for evidence – facts to support everything comming from the left, but I get no facts, just allegations and innuendo, More somehow it is russia’s fault.

                  I think Putin should be flattered that his country which is slowly slipping into the 3rd world is still purportedly capable of forging 10,000 emails and tilting US elections.

          3. This apologist/denier conveniently ignored the facts introduced by Sidney Powell.

            Can you say conspiracy to falsely incriminate another?

            “VP – Logan Act”


            Powell wrote that the notes show that “Director Comey himself and the highest levels of the Obama Administration had the transcripts of Flynn’s phone calls with officials of other countries and knew General Flynn’s calls were lawful and proper.”

            “Strzok’s notes believed to be of January 4, 2017, reveal that former President Obama, James Comey, Sally Yates, Joe Biden, and apparently Susan Rice discussed the transcripts of Flynn’s calls and how to proceed against him,” Powell wrote. “Mr. Obama himself directed that ‘the right people’ investigate General Flynn.”

            She added: “This caused former FBI Director Comey to acknowledge the obvious: General Flynn’s phone calls with Ambassador Kislyak ‘appear legit.’”

            Powell also wrote that according to the notes “it appears that Vice President Biden personally raised the idea of the Logan Act.”

            “That became an admitted pretext to investigate General Flynn,” she added.

            1. “I don’t know what that was about, but let’s go through the report and please go through the key findings. What struck you most in terms of the money that Hunter Biden accepted from these foreign countries and foreign companies while his father was vice president,” he said.

              According to the Senate Republican report, Hunter was serving on Burisma’s board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance and transparency), when Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky allegedly paid a USD 7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to “shut the case against Zlochevsky”.

              “George Kent testified that this bribe occurred in December 2014 (seven months after Hunter joined Burisma’s board), and, after learning about it, he and the resident legal adviser reported this allegation to the FBI,” it said.

              Kent is serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs since September 4, 2018. His early service has included assignments in the US diplomatic missions to Poland, Thailand and Uzbekistan.

              “In addition to the over four million dollars paid by Burisma to Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer, for membership on the board, Hunter, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds,” the report said.

              ” Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals linked to the Communist government and People’s Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in questionable transactions,” it alleged.

              – Economic Times

    2. Perhaps JB’s statement about HB that “I didn’t know he was on the board of that company”.

    3. Biden said that he had no knowledge of His Son’s deals.

      These emails demostrate that not only did he know (though that has been proven repeatedly before), but that he was involved.

      The emails document a meeting between JB and 33 in Burisma prior to getting Shokin fired.

      That is HUGE if true – and the odds of it not being true are slim to none.

      Just knowledge of Hunter’s deals means that Biden was ethically required to remove himself from all dealings involving the companies his son represents.

      Actual involvement means that getting Shokin Fired is obstruction of Justice in the Ukraine and likely violates numerous government corruption statutes in the US.

      I would also note for anyone who has ever had training in corporate practices and international law – and just about everyone who is part of an SMB in the US that does foreign business has likely had that training – Hunter’s actions violate both US and international corrupt foreign business practices laws.

      But then the Law’s made in congress do not apply to the left elites that make them.

      1. “The emails document a meeting between JB and 33 in Burisma prior to getting Shokin fired.”

        Please quote what you refer to from the emails. No reporting I’ve seen factually supports your claim.

        It appears to me that people see what their politics lead them to, however plainly it contradicts reality. Even Turley.

        1. I do not owe you a quite.

          Regardless – yes the media has reported this – and the Biden campaign has claimed that this meeting was not on his Calendar and the media has therefore decided without serious investigation that it never occured.

          But SP It is getting worse.

          We now have a HB Taxt to Naomi that says that JB is taking half his income in return for using his influence.

          We have emails and texts Placing JB in meetings with HB and his chinese business partners.

          There is a reason the media is actively trying to supress of discredit this – If True – and it is highly likely it is true JB is clearly corrupt.

          While he may be no more corrupt than other politicians – These emails and texts PROVE he is corrupt.

          We all KNOW that Hillary Clinton was corrupt, But but though we have lots of evidence of clinton’s corruption – IN PLAIN SITE. there is no proof.

          I would love to hear a non-corrupt excuse for JB demanding 50% of HB’s copnsulting fees – do you have one ?

          I would love to hear a non-corrupt excuse for JB meeting with #3 Burisma executives about a year before he demands the firing of the Ukrainian PG investigating them.

          We have gone round and round over Ukraine for years.

          Do you honestly beleive that Burisma was not Corrupt – I would note that Burisma is tied to ….. RUSSIA.

          We keep ranting that Russia is helping Trump – what kind of Idiots are you ?

          The Biden’s were protecting RUSSIAN interests in Ukraine.

          Please provide an innocent explanation for ending the investigation into a Corrupt Russian Influenced Company in Ukraine ?

          Please provide an innocent explanation for Hunter Biden and Devon Archer to take Millions from Burisma ?

          Please provide an innocent explanation for Joe Biden to go to a meeting arranged by Hunter with the #3 person in Burisma ?

          Please provide an innocent explanation for Joe Biden to shortly after blackmail Ukraine into dropping the investigation of Burisma ?

          Please provide an innocent explanation for the US State department and the DNC to work with Pro Russia Factions in the Ukraine to frame Paul Manafort during an election ?

          You are blind to reality.

          1. You owe yourself and everyone else whose attention you impose on due care and evidence for your claims. So far, you’re entirely lacking in both.

            “We now have a HB Taxt to Naomi that says that JB is taking half his income in return for using his influence.”

            No we don’t.

            When you can supply evidence for the claim I questioned before, and for this latest bit of transparent propaganda, I’ll read the rest of your remarks. For now, it’s apparent they aren’t worth the time.

            1. “You owe yourself and everyone else whose attention you impose on due care and evidence for your claims. So far, you’re entirely lacking in both.”
              False and false.

              I owe you nor anyone else nothing.
              The claims I made have plenty of evidence.

              ““We now have a HB Taxt to Naomi that says that JB is taking half his income in return for using his influence.”

              No we don’t.”
              We don;’t ? I guess you can not read.

              “When you can supply evidence for the claim I questioned before”
              I have supplied evidence for every claim i have made – though I am not obligated to.

              “, and for this latest bit of transparent propaganda,”
              This makes no sense ?

              Are you claiming the NY Post article is transparent propoganda ? That the information that Guiliani has the NY Post has, the FBI has, the Senate Intelligence committee has is an obvious fraud ?

              If you have such evidence – Please share it. I am easy – I will send to jail anyone involved in a fraud like this.
              In a defamation trial I will award the Biden’s hundreds of millions from the NY Post if this is a fraud.

              If this is not a fraud – will you hold the Biden’s accountable ? Will you demand he withdrawl ? Or Resign if elected ? Or demand that democrats and republicans joint to impeach him ?

              Will you demand that democrats withdraw their impeachment of Trump as a fraud if this is true ?

              You bandy about terms like propoganda – this is more than propoganda. One way or the other this is a serious criminal act.

              If it is a forgery and fraud it is a serious crime. If it is authentic it is evidence of a serious crime.

              There is no ignoring this.

              I can not force you to take this seriously – but you are incredibly hypocritical if you can still elect a person who sold out the vice presidency.

              And if this is actually false – anyone invovled should go to jail – including Trump if he is involved in a fraud.

              “I’ll read the rest of your remarks. For now, it’s apparent they aren’t worth the time.”

              Ostrich with your head in the sand.

              1. Your inability to follow simple English, among other problems, makes discussion more laborious than it should be. What I quoted from you above is transparent propaganda. The evidence claimed for it (a purported text from HB) simply doesn’t say or imply it.

                But you’ve already shown you swallow transparent propaganda without questioning it, as long as it fits the views you have. You’re the perfect Trump supporter, as he completely relies on that kind of behavior among his supporters.

                1. I have no problems following simple English.

                  You are the one who can not grasp simple english.

                  The email YOU claim does not say VP Biden met with a Burisma exec says it TWICE – in simple english.
                  Read it.

                  The Text from HB says that his Papa is getting 50% of his income – again english.
                  Read it.

                  Here is another.

                  “I love you all but I don’t receive any respect, and that’s fine, I guess,” Hunter wrote. “Works for you, apparently. I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for thirty years.”

        2. Do people see what their politics lead them to – Absolutely! Look in the mirror.

          I suggest that you disregard editorializing by either the left or the right. That You ignore oppinions and stick exclusively to FACTS.

          Do not listen to what the NY Post says about the documents from Hunter’s laptop’s – read the documents and form your own oppinion based on the facts.

          There is a claim that somehow these are “hacked” or the result of Russian interferance.

          Anything is possible, but again stick to the FACTS.

          I beleive it has been established – both by the actions of the Biden Campaign demanding the laptops back, and but the emails from Hunter Biden regarding the Laptops that Hunter left these laptops with this repair shop and then failed to pay for them. Subsequently the shop owner examined the contents and provided those contents to:
          The FBI
          Rudy Guiliani
          The NY Post

          So where is Russia in this ?

          Separately, does it even matter ? Absolutely PROOF that actual russian agents were the source of some of this would be a reason to be suspicious – but so far all I am hearing is more claims from reporters based on “anonymous government sources” – Where have we heard that before and when has it proved accurate ?

          As best as I can tell there is a clear chain of custody from Hunter to the repair shop to the NY Post.

          There is no opportunity for Russian Forgery.

          There are two issues regarding these documents:

          First are they authentic – i.e. are they forged or altered.
          That is highly unlikely under the circumstances – but absolutely the press should be examining that – but not by speculating wildly.

          Second is are they accurate – just because These emails were sent or received does not make them the truth.

          Regardless, it appears highly likely that these documents are both authentic and accurate.

          I would note that they are also consistent with the myriads of other documents that have been recovered from Ukraine, Romania, Hunter Biden’s lawyers, The US State department via FOIA requests, the Testimony of Shokin and others.

          There is very little in the way of inconsistencies accross the whole body of documents.

          The Bottom Line is that Joe Biden is corrupt.

          This is not about Hunter, his sex trafficing with 13yr olds, his shady deals, his drug habit.

          It is about the fact that Joe Biden has been selling the office of the Vice President (and that of Senator before).

          These documents show not merely that Hunter profited from Joe’s positions – and that Joe knew that and helped Hunter to do so,
          But that Joe himself profitted.

        3. Which part of the following facts do you despute ?

          Hunter Biden dropped off two mac laptops for repairs in April 2020.

          Hunter Biden failed to pay for the repairs and pick up the laptops.

          The store owner turned over the contents of the laptops to:
          The FBI
          The NY Post
          Rudy Gulliani

          The NY Post is now running a series of stories using the materials found on the latops as source material.

          The documents say what they say.

          There are no actual russians (or other foreign powers) in the chain of custody of this information.

          1. The photo in the NY Post shows a receipt and estimate for 3 laptops, not 2. The photo in the Post shows that it was from April 2019, not April 2020. The store owner is legally blind and said he isn’t 100% sure that the laptops came from Biden. The FBI took a laptop and external hard drive, not just copies. The Post said they got the info from Giuliani, not from the store owner. Look at how many mistakes you’ve made in just a few lines. You are not a trustworthy commenter.

            1. “The photo in the NY Post shows a receipt and estimate for 3 laptops, not 2.”

              oh, My send me to prison for Perjury!!!.

              3, 2, 1 ? Does it matter ?

              “The photo in the Post shows that it was from April 2019, not April 2020.”
              oh, My send me to prison for Perjury!!!.

              2019, 2020 ? Does it matter ?

              “The store owner is legally blind and said he isn’t 100% sure that the laptops came from Biden.”
              Correct, But Biden’s attorney emailed to get them back.

              Regardless, this is real simple – if they are not authentic – it should be very easy to establish.
              How easy do you think it is to forge this much information ?

              Are the video’s of Hunter Biden ? Are the Photo’s ? Are these video’s and photos that were publicly available before ?

              Turley has another post on precisely this.

              If these are frauds – that is a HUGE story itself, and one that should be easy to establish.

              If these are frauds The Biden’s should be foaming at the mouth and should be able to easily demonstrate the errors.
              If these are frauds this is a massive defamation case. And there is no doubt about malice so it does not matter than Biden is a public figure.

              But as Turley noted what do we hear from Biden ? Crickets.

              “The FBI took a laptop and external hard drive, not just copies.”
              So ?

              “The Post said they got the info from Giuliani, not from the store owner.”
              So ?

              “Look at how many mistakes you’ve made in just a few lines.”
              And not a single one in anyway a meaningful error.

              The actual number of laptops changes nothing.
              A 2019 date makes this ever more credible.
              Who got what data how is not particularly critical.

              Sen. Johnson has just confirmed that the Senate committee investigating Hunter Biden got this 2 weeks ago and has been demanding the FBI authenticate it which they have failed to do. He has given then until Thursday to do so.

              The fundimental questions – as I have noted from the begining are:

              Is this information authentic, and is is accurate. If it is authentic it is likely accurate. though those are independent issues.
              Emails can be authentic but inaccurate. They can have dates wrong or events out of order.

              Of the two questions the most important is “is this authentic”.

              The left is correct to note that if it is not – it is a big deal – a huge crime.

              I would further note that because this material, the material John Solomon acquired from Ukraine or FOIA requests, or that Guiliani aquired
              Basically dozen’s of other sources that you and the left have been calling some debunked conspiracy – all this infromation is in agreement. It all shows a consistent pattern of Biden family corruption.

              It is near certain all true or all false. It is all authentic or all fruadulent.

              And the fact that it all ties together – including with numerous public records leads to the former more than the later.

              I think the odds of this not being authentic are small. But it is likely we will know soon enough.
              Though i doubt you will beleive regardless.

              If it is authentic – the Biden family is bent. They have been selling influence for decades. More specifically and more recently VP Biden has been selling the vice presidency of the United States.

              There is zero doubt that this is criminal.

              “You are not a trustworthy commenter.”

              I have a long record of credibility – I do not expect to be wrong about this – how about you ?

              Willing to bet your reputation on Biden’s intergrity ?

                1. “You have a long record of calling yourself credible while posting garbage.”

                  That would be false. I rarely talk about my own credibility – I do not need to. My posts speak for themselves.
                  You can check the facts.

                  Is the precise number of laptops some fact that devastates my credibility ?

                  1. 2. 3 – it does not matter.
                  What matters is what is on them.

                  BTW the number is reported by the press (and the FBI) differently.

                  The earlier date is even more damning – it means the FBI failed to provide exculpatory evidence to Trump and the House and Senate during the impeachment.

            2. Yes, we have been through this word mangling on your part before.

              So lets summarize – despite your idiocy over “likely” – several infuential expoert sources – the ones relied on by other government, the UK and most of Europe predicted millions of deaths if government did not take drastic action.

              There is ZERO doubt of that prediction.

              We can debate whether governments arround the world took drastic action – Sweden did not and still have 1/15th the predicted deaths.

              If as you claim Trump failed to act – then why are deaths about 1/10th-1/20th what was predicted.

              You can not have Trump failed to act And the 2-4M death prediction be accurate.

              In fact you can not have the prediction accurate regardless.

              Then there is the question of the effectiveness of drastic government actions – the outcome in Sweden and the rest of the west has been similar – except the Swedes are done, and the rest of the West is not.

              Clearly the policies of the US, UK, and the rest of europe had negligable effect.

              And recently meta studies by the CDC confirmed that. In the real world masks do not work, social distancing does not work, hygeine does not work. Are they technically flawed – maybe not – there is evidence that each of these work in the laboratory. But labs are not the real world. In the real world we have real people, who rub their noses and wear bandana’s not N95 masks and …..
              You can virtue signal all you want and blame the victims – but the FACT is you can not stop C19 using the policies you have advocated.
              If they work at all – they do not work in the real world, and you can not make the real world into the lab.

              Then we come to the Biden’s – Please authenticate this information – prove it is a fraud and I will be happy to jail those responsible.

              But if it is correct – Biden should not be president. If elected he should resign. He should be lucky to stay out of jail.

              Hillary is atleast better at corruption than this.

              You want to fixate on the count of laptops or the date of receipts or whatever nonsensical meaningless bunk you wish – fine,
              I do not care. i am not interested in this pretend word smithing.

              You are proving the problem with your claim that trump lies thousands of times – by making meaningless broad statements into lies because they do not meet your standards of precision – when they do not need to ?

              Does the number of laptops on the receipt change whether Biden is corrupt ?
              Does the date on the receipt change it ?

              What changes it ? Focus on that.

        4. Sanpete, you’re new here. There are a lot of trolls here, and John Say is one of them. He’s a bloviator, so if you feed him, be prepared for the long, garbage-filled responses, where he holds to you standards he won’t meet himself and introduces dozens of new issues to deflect from the one you’re trying to pursue.

          1. If you are going to make moral Accusations – then you must prove them. If you can not the moral failure is yours.

            You are not even prepared to post under a unique pseudonym. By posting completely anonymously you have no credibility and you create confusion. Anyone who does not properly login of fill out the posting ID will also be recorded as anonymous – being confused with you.

            So ultimately you have no identity of any kind and no credibility. You can den y any post you make – that was some other anonymous, not you. You can lie without consequence.

            I would note conversely it is not possible to defame you – because you do not exist. You are not even a psuedonym on the internet – you are nothing – by choice.

            If my posts contain significant errors – be prepared to point them out and defend those claims.

            SP has demanded proof of several assertions.

            Though not obligated to – I have provided proof.

            SP continues to deny what is right in front of her face.

            That is not my problem.

      2. The “emails” do not document a meeting between Joe Biden and Burisma and the firing of Shokin was US, EU, and IMF policy – none of which GAF about Hunter Biden – which Biden was tasked with pushing. GOP Senator Ron Johnson wrote a letter encouraging it. Shokin was not investigating Burisma. He wasn’t investigating anyone, which was the point.

        1. Can you read ?

          There are only two choices – the emails are fabrications – or Joe Biden met with the #3 in Burisma and left with Burisma very happy about that meeting.

          The global Policy regarding Shokin was determined ENTIRELY by the US and Specifically by the FBI Team that Biden lead.

          There remains to this moment absolutely no actual evidence that Shokin was corrupt.

          And yes Shokin WAS investigating Burisma – there was a meeting with Shikin and Hunter Biden’s lawyers scheduled the day after Shokin was fired.

          BTW the investigation of Burisma by Shokin is incredibly well documented – there was a war going on between Ukrainian prosecutors and Burisma in the UK seeking the impoundment of millions of dollars. Hunter Biden’s lawyers were ACTIVELTY lobbying the state department on Burisma’s behalf

          Regardless – make up your mind. Are you going to claim Burisma was NOT involved in any wrong doing ? The settled 2 cases with the Urkaine for large sums and they continue to be under investigation in the Ukraine.

          Are you claiming that Shokin was not investigating Burisma ? That is well documented.

          Are you claiming that Burisma was corrupt (which is pretty self evident’) – but the Biden’s were NOT tied to them ?

          Are you claiming that Burisma is NOT tired to Russia ?

          Grow up JF there is no way to thread your way through the actual facts.

          Provide some facts – Documents, primary sources, not self contradictory innuendo.

          You say that the “policy” of Europe matched that of the US/Biden ?

          Duh ? Why do you think that Hunter Biden was being so well paid ?

          Of course the european policy was hostile to Shokin. That is exactly what Burisma was paying for – the influence of the worlds most powerful super power.

          You fail to grasp that investigations often take a long time – it has taken years for the dirt on Biden to surface.

            1. No Irony at all.

              In what world does

              “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together. It’s realty an honor and pleasure,”

              not mean “they met”

              “spent some time together:” is past tense.

              I suspect the author is not a native english speaker – but mistaken grammar is a thin reed to claim I am lying.

              1. The irony builds. I obviously didn’t say you were lying.

                “Spent” should be coordinate with “opportunity to,” and thus should read “spend,” present tense as with “It’s.” Your reading makes hash of perfectly good grammar. Spelling is clearly an issue in that email, not grammar.

                At least you’re finally reading the email.

                1. Spent – PAST TENSE!!! And no, you do not get to rewrite the text to suit yourself.
                  And Oportunity to is tenseless – it works either way.

                  Of course the grammar is bad – almost no one writes proper english anymore – you expect better from a Russian than from someone who graduated from DC High Schools ?

                  Regardless, you are reaching and you know it.

                  And YOUR version is not so hot either. That Still leaves Joe Biden promising to meet with this guy – so Now we are looking for a future meeting.

                  You STILL have Biden connected to Burisma. Your BEST Outcome is there was a promised meeting and Biden begged off.

                  That STILL shreds Joes claim that he knew nothing of Hunter’s business. And that he knew nothing of Burisma.

                  FURTHER, this email alone – NO MATTER WHAT IT MEANS – is exculpatory evidence that was in the FBI’s hands during the impeachment trial that was NOT Turned over To Trump’s attorney’s.

                  NO MATTER WHAT IT MEANS – It STILL means that there was a legitimate basis for Trump to ask for – even demand an investigation of the Bidens from Zelensky. It also means that the House Democrats were full of Schiff. That the FBI is STILL HIDING evidence that favors Trump,

                  It also means the Biden’s are morally bankrupt. They allowed Trump to be impeached when THEY KNEW they had connections to Burisma beyond what they admitted publicly and that even if they delude themselves into beleiving they were innocent – they KNEW Trump was innocent – something YOU should grasp too.

                  All reads of this make Biden look bad.
                  All reads of this make democrats look bad,
                  All reads of this make the FBI look bad.
                  All reads of this make the media look bad.
                  All reads of this make Trump look good.

                  Your BEST claim is that it is a forgery – otherwise you are F’d no matter what.

      3. John says “the odds of it not being true are slim to none,” even though he has no way of assessing the odds.

        1. Of course I do.

          It is pretty trivial.

          1). It should not be difficult to determine whether these documents actually came from Hunter Biden’s laptops.

          2). We have a trove of documents – from the laptops and from myriads of other sources.
          These either fit together and can be frequently confirmed by other known facts, or they are frequently at odds with each other and known facts.

          As an example – these emails claim that VP Biden was present and participated at a variety of meetings.
          We can check Biden’s schedule and see if that is possible.

          Hunter claims that 50% of his payments went to Joe. So subpeona Hunter’s bank records and see if money can be traced to Joe, or if money is leaving Hunter without good explanation.

          There are many many many ways of confirming the authenticity of this.

          Like the typical left wing nut, your thinking is shallow, You think that if you do not want to beleive something – it can not be proven true.

          There is ZERO doubt that this stuff can be authenticated. It is not all that difficult.

          Sen. Johnson has come forward and stated that this WhistleBlower provided these documents to his committee weeks ago and that he asked the FBI to authenticate them at the time. Now he is demanding they do so.

          While I think this can be done without the FBI – and the press should spend less time speculating and floating oppinion and inuendo and more time digging, and it is only the press that is likely to get us a fast answer to this. Still the FBI will ultimately be able to validate this.

          I would further note that if the FBI is able to do so – even if Biden is elected, he will fact serious problems. This is not going away.

          1. That it CAN be authenticated does not mean that it HAS been authenticated.

            It has not, and you don’t know the odds that it will be authenticated versus ruled inauthentic.

            1. “That it CAN be authenticated does not mean that it HAS been authenticated.

              It has not, and you don’t know the odds that it will be authenticated versus ruled inauthentic.”

              I would note that the Steele Dossier was never autheticated – yet you had no problems buying the collusion delusion.

              You are presuming that authentication is Binary. It is not. This information dovetails with numerous other sources that YOU and the left have claimed falsely were debunked right wing conspiracies.

              When many things from many sources are in agreement that is a form of authentication – The odds of documents from the US State department, Ukraine PG, Romanian banks, correspondence from Hunter’s lawyer’s, and information from the FBI and NY Times, all being in fundimental agreement and being inauthentic or false are very small.

              I would further note that, The Biden campaign has said many things but it has not claimed the documents were not from Hunter’s laptops.

              Further to some extent the documents are self authenticating – the pictures and Video’s of Hunter can be evaluated by most of us without experts – and again the Biden’s have not claimed they are forgeries.

              We are hearing lots of Russian Disinformation nonsense, or debunked conspiracy claims. We are not hearing any out right denials from anyone who actually would know – and we will not hear that, because that is damning if false – and it is likely false.

              If we know some of the documents are authentic – that increases the likelyhood all are.

              Put simply it is ALREADY far more likely these files are authentic that it ever was likely that the Steele Dossier was.

              My guess is if Biden is elected and democrats control both houses – this will get swept under the rug – like all the Obama era scandals.

              If Trump is re-elected – I am not sure. It would be Trump’s last term. He has no need to go after Biden and Trump is not the vindictive sort – like Clinton – I would note for all the “lock her up” chants – no one went after Clinton when Trump was elected.

    4. Biden in the past said he never spoke to his son about his business dealings

        1. The emails and other documnents REPEATEDLY document JB’s involvement in Hunters business deals.

          They not merely document this meeting with the #3 in Burisma before JB blackmailed Ukraine into firing the PG investigating Burisma.
          But also JB’s participation in meetings with HB and his chinese business partners.

          And they document that HB was giving JB 50% of his consulting fees as a tax for JB’s influence as VP.

          Please SP – we would all love to hear a good explanation from YOU as to why these should not be considered seriously ?

          Should the provenance of these documents be verified ? Absolutely. Though the chain of custody looks excellent at the moment, both reporters and the FBI should look into whether these are forced or altered.
          We do not want another Steele Dossier Fiasco.

          Even after verifying that the documents are authentic – we should also verify that the contents are accurate.

          Did HB Lie when he texted Naomi that JB was “taxing” him 50% of his consulting fees ?

          Do we have other means of corroborating the details in these documents ?

          Absolutely the Press and the DOJ/FBI should be trying to determine the authenticity and accuracy of all of this.

          That said – contra the press, it is NOT likely these are forgeries, and it is NOT likely these are false representations.

          But you and the press should absolutely do your best to scrutinize these.

          But doing your best means – dig into the facts, It does not mean report nonsense oppinions from anonymous sources.

          This is important.

          These documents constitute far more than enough to open a serious criminal investigation into Joe Biden.
          If he is elected – they REQUIRE the appointment of a Special Counsel.
          If he is elected and as appears they are authentic and accurate they REQUIRE his immediate impeachment.

          And I would note though we are focused on Joe Biden, this goes much further – this involves the Kerry family and the Pelosi Family at a minimum.

      1. Now we have a Text From Hunter to another Family member saying that JB imposed a 50% Tax on the earnings of the rest of the Biden family in return form using his influence.

          1. The text probably did come from him, but it doesn’t say what Say claims, no more than the “smoking gun” email does. Truth is a very, very low priority in partisan politics.

            1. If you accept that these documents are authentic – the debate is over.

              There is not enough ambiguity in this to save the Biden’s.

              Hunter is clearly saying that Joe Biden is demanding 1/2 his earnings – and where is it that Hunter earns money – by selling influence.

              And why would Joe be entitled to half – because it is the VP’s influence being sold.

              If you have an alternate explanation for plain language – please provide it.

              The rest of us can read.

              I do not honestly beleive you are arguing the clear meaning of emails and texts.

              You are not capable of being honest with yourself.

              1. “You are not capable of being honest with yourself.”

                More Class A irony, but you lack the self-awareness to see that.

                No, HB is not clearly saying what you claim he is. There’s no context given at all; you’re again following without question the transparent propaganda you so rely on that simply makes up context for it. It could relate to all sorts of things.

                Since you lack the will to come up with any other possible context, I’ll suggest one: HB may have owed his father money, for which JB required him to repay with 50% of his income. Not an unusual arrangement. Really none of our business, nor is a lot of the dirt your sources are so reveling in.

                1. “Unlike Pop (Joe Biden), I Won’t Make You Give Me Half of Your Salary”

                  Please Please, lets see your mangling of english to give that context that is innocent ?

                  1. Reading is hard, evidently! See above, and this time read it before you reply. Works better in that order.

                    1. I learned to read long ago – before school. I would be surprised if you have read a fraction of what I have read – either fiction or non fiction.

                      I would be surprised if you have written a fraction of what I have written.

                      Regardless, if your politics alters your reading – and yours does – your problem is with your politics.

                2. Quite often the truth is also “transparent propoganda” – get a clue.

                  It is a text – it is meant to stand alone.

                  But if you think there is useful context – PROVIDE IT.

                  Lets not assume it into existance.

                  Your a worm wriggling on a hook. This is not likely to get better for you.

                  Regardless, I am all for delving as deeply into this as possible. If as the media claims it is forged – Fry whoever is involved, send they to jail, and award the Biden’s millions in damages.

                  If it is not – then Joe Biden goes to jail.

                  There is not a gray area here. If you think this is true – and the probability it is not is very low – and you vote for Biden you are incredibly immoral.

                  If you delude yourself into thinking it is NOT, when as is near certain that delusion fails – you are morally obligated to demand Biden’s impeachment, conviction, removal and criminal trial.

                  I do not think we have ever had such an egregious sell out of political office in our history.

                  Most of us grasp the Clinton’s are dirty as mud – but not this brazenly dirty.

                  And your whole party has been protecting them, as has the press.

                  Nixon did not do anything this bad.

                  1. Is that supposed to be a reply to what I said?

                    If I ever need a direct conduit to what Fox and Rush are saying, unfiltered by any critical reasoning at all, I’ll be sure to catch up on your posts.

                    1. Don;t watch fox, do not listen to Limbaugh.

                      But I would note that the :”:right wing conspiracy theorists” have a far better track record in the past 4 years than say – Rachel Maddow or you.

                      I do not think even wacky Alex Jones as offered anything so convoluted as the Truth regarding collusion delusion and the Trump witch hunt or the tremendous efforts that have been taken to frame Trump for exposing actual corruption be Biden.

                3. I am not required to try to bend the meaning of the emails or texts – and the numbers of very disturbing ones are growing – to contrive to find an innocent explanation.

                  If you have ACTUAL context that makes this innocent – otherwise the plain reading is what we all must lean on.

                  I would also note your hypocracy. You sell the crap that Trump praised Nazi’s and White Supremecists from an out of context quote in which the words IMMEDIATELY before the quite condemn nazi’s and white supremecists.

                  And that was not a text or tweet – it was a long answer to a reporters question in which Trump condemned an assortment of white supremicists groups by name repeatedly.

                  Sorry – you and the left are hypocrits and dishonest.

                  1. “I would also note your hypocracy. You sell the crap that Trump praised Nazi’s and White Supremecists from an out of context quote in which the words IMMEDIATELY before the quite condemn nazi’s and white supremecists.”

                    John, Sanpete did the same thing with the letter about the meeting with Joe Biden. She was falsely claiming that the words also could mean that he was going to see Joe Biden and hadn’t seen him. But she left out the last sentence where the author of the letter said he would meet Hunter before or on the way to the airport. There were three elements in that email. Sanpete produced two and withheld the third. Intellectual honesty is not her forte.

                    1. Why is it strange? You are a very shallow thinker. Too much time spent with 1’s and 0’s

                    2. The modern rules of writing require unclear references to be feminine. Just as for thousands of years they were masculine.

                      But I think Allan has a pretty good idea who SP is, and he is likely right.
                      Further she has not corrected the use of she making it likely correct.

                    3. Wow. That’s flatly and obviously false, and the last bit is enormously ironic. I explicitly and repeatedly addressed the last sentence, which as I explained to you allows for the meeting being scheduled later that morning.

                      You need to get a grip on yourself, and reality. Slow down, read carefully, think. Don’t say things that you can easily check to see are manifestly false. Stop accusing others of dishonesty when you clearly need to look inward in regard to the necessary tools of intellectual honesty.

                    4. Now, you will play more word games. You can say the sun missed hitting you on the head yesterday but it is possible for it to hit you on the head tomorrow.

                      “. I explicitly and repeatedly addressed the last sentence”

                      Funny how when you quoted the email you left that portion out of your quote. As I have said, anything is possible but your dependence on that type of thinking means that there is no such thing as fact. We all know what you said and can figure out what you meant.

                      Take note how you constantly evolve your story. That is the problem the Bidens have with denying anything. They know the laptop is valid and they know there is incriminating evidence on the laptop. They don’t know all the incriminating facts so anything they say can dig a deeper hole.

                      Here is something near the beginning of your evolution that changes bit by bit. Every time your tail grows back it is removed and it grows back again. You want us to think the latest ‘evolution’ of your tale (tail) means it was never broken off despite its infantile size.

                      You said: “The clear fact is that the words imply only that the author is grateful that a meeting has been arranged, or at least promised. Whether it ever happened is another matter.”

                      No mention of when. You are trying to make a horse into a giraffe but it doesn’t look or sound right.

                      “You need to get a grip on yourself, and reality.”

                      Now just like the tiny lizard that lost its tail you face off with a cat. Opening your mouth wide trying to convince him that you are something to be afraid of. All you are doing is trying to convince yourself by using word games and constantly manipulating the discussion. LOL

                    5. SP wishes to engage in contrived readings of each peice of evidence without reference to the whole.

                      If this is russian disinformation – the debate about the grammar is stupid.

                      To microparse sentences as she has she must accept that the emails are authentic.

                      One must further look at the evidence as a whole.

                      Biden did not just have one meeting with one Business associate of Hunters – he had many.

                      It makes zero sense to microparse away a single email – when you have photos and the statements of participants to an entire pattern of corruption.

                      Meeting with the Burisma exec is just one of many corrupt acts on the part of Biden.

                    6. “Wow. That’s flatly and obviously false, and the last bit is enormously ironic. ”
                      If so that should be easily demonstrable rather than merely asserted.

                      “I explicitly and repeatedly addressed the last sentence, which as I explained to you allows for the meeting being scheduled later that morning.” You did say that, and you logic is both wrong and irrelevant – you can not convert the email into a future reference without making several changes to the tense of the rest of the text.

                      You also are ignoring the fact that the Biden campaign has already admitted this meeting may have taken place.

                      “You need to get a grip on yourself, and reality. Slow down, read carefully, think.”
                      Good advice – you should follow it.

                      ” Don’t say things that you can easily check to see are manifestly false.”
                      Again good advice – do not try to sell an unnatural read of a single phrase as correct when doing so requires changing the tense of the entire text.

                      “Stop accusing others of dishonesty when you clearly need to look inward in regard to the necessary tools of intellectual honesty.”
                      Again good advice.

                      Regardless, there is never dishonesty in reading a text as it is written. It is possible that the author erred in their writing and your read is wrong, but it is never dishonest. At the same time if you try to read part of a text differently than it is written, and do so ignoring that makes it inconsistent with the rest – you are being dishonest with yourself.

                      SP – you have lost this one. It is possible that the email’s author who is not a native english speaker intented to refer to a future meeting, but botched the tense and form of his writing. But that is not likely and absent outside evidence which you do not have that strained reading is improbable and dishonest.

                      I would note that Hunter, the Author, and Joe Biden all have the ability to correct any misunderstanding.

                      None have said the meeting did not occur.

                      Joe Biden is busy pointing out that OTHERS have challenged these documents.
                      Yet, Biden is a primary source and participant. It is ridiculous for Biden to rant that 50 former officials – none of whom have any direct information to base their oppinion on, claim this is classic russian disinformation – if so, that should be easy to prove – every participant in the alleged meeting is available and can answer – Joe is one of those.

                      Rather than ranting about the opinion of others – Why can’t Joe tell us himself.

                      Joe Biden KNOWS whether these emails etc are authentic. It is quite easy for him to say “this is false”.

                      Biden had Zero problems blatantly falsely accusing Trump of being a liar in the debate. Biden has said he would ban fracking – not once, but many times. So many times there are no possible out of context issues. Biden claims he will end the use of Fossil Fuels by 2025,
                      I am pretty sure that no one is “fracking” to get wind or solar energy.

                      I have said repeatedly – when you make a moral accusation against another the burden of proof is on you.

                      Biden has atleast once said he would end fracking on federal land. But he has also – far more than once said he would end fracking period, and end fossil fuels period. You can not end fossil fuels without ending fracking.

                      Trump was telling the Truth – Joe was lying, and worse falsely accusing another of lying.

                    7. Anonymous, the first thing that comes to mind is that you have no credibility.

                      The second thing is that I chose the female gender. That gives me ~50% chance of being right.

                      Of course there is a 50% chance of being wrong but you are making a big deal out of the flip of a coin. Very petty mind.

                    8. Allan, you clearly don’t intend to take my advice, which you continue to flout. I don’t recall quoting the email, nor would it matter to what I just said if I had.

                      You are in much need of self-examination, with no hope of seeing things as they until you take some potentially very arduous steps. Knowing the truth about self and world isn’t usually as easy as you try to make it.

                    9. Sanpete, why would anyone want to take your advice. It’s built on an insecure foundation of words, more words and more words. All just linked together without meaning unrepresentative of the real world.

                    10. SP that is correct – you have not quoted the email – I have, in its entirety several times.

                      You have only provided your effort to contrive a meaning that is highly unlikely and makes a mess of the rest of the email.

                      And that leaves you thousands of additional damning documents to “fix” before Joe can be found innocent.

                    11. No self-knowledge = no sense of irony, no matter how howlingly obvious. I hope you’ll look inward someday. You could be happier and more useful that way.

                    12. While you move words around, I’ll repeat portions of prior comments that have something to say.

                      “Take note how you constantly evolve your story. That is the problem the Bidens have with denying anything. They know the laptop is valid and they know there is incriminating evidence on the laptop. They don’t know all the incriminating facts so anything they say can dig a deeper hole.

                    13. The answers to the question of Joe Biden’s corruption are not to be found by looking inward, or through irony or self awareness, they are to be found in the FACTS, lots of facts.

                      But I would note that it is the left today that is completely devoid of any self awareness, irony, or any form of comedy.

                      The left is a paper thin caraciture of itself.

                    14. One of the problems when you do not take words seriously, when you mange the meaning of words, when you slice and dice remarks not merely out of their broad context but even the immediately preceding words is that your own biases drive what you hear – not what is actually said, and that when you communicate to others you are no longer communicating the truth but what you want to beleive.

                      The Burisma meeting email standing alone COULD mean what SP claims – that is a very strained and unlikely read, but the writer is not a native english speaker and if you assume enough use and gramar errors you can get it tomean almost anything.

                      But add to this the increasing body of evidence that VP Biden was meeting with others for Hunters financial benefit, that the product Hunter was selling was access to VP Biden, and that as demonstrated with Burisma the expectation was RESULTS, and the increasing evidence that Joe Biden is personally profiting – that all deal required that a cut of the “profits” went to Joe.

                      AND that these deals were investments in VP Biden – not true financial investments. The Chinese as an example placed an enormous amount of Money with Hunter to invest. But they really did not care about a traditional ROI and had no concerns about the money the Bidens were taking money out for personal use. The Chinese investment is clearly in Joe Biden and almost everyone knew that.

                4. The exact words of Joe Biden, Hunter Biden or a Burisma exactutive are NOT Transparent republican propoganda.

                  Each of these people is responsible for their own words.

                  If as you say there is context that changes the meaning – provide it.

                  Joe Biden spoke publicly when he admitted blackmailing the Ukraine. Got find the video – play the entire speech, provide context that changes its meaning – there is none – Biden was BRAGGING about blackmailing Ukraine.

                  The Burisma Exec’s email is complete – it is not an excerpt from that email – it is the entire email. All the immediate context is there.
                  If you think that prior or subsequent emails change the meaning – the Biden’s should provide them.

                  The Hunter Biden text is COMPLETE. If you think prior or subsequent Texts change the meaning – the Biden’s should provide them.

                  I will be happy to look at ACTUAL additional context to consider whether it changes the meaning.

                  But not hypothetical context.

                  The only “transparent propoganda” is yours.

                  When the real world, when FACTS do not match your ideology – it is NOT the world that is wrong. It is not reality that is in error.

                  It is YOU.

                  Honest people grasp that.

                5. So more ad hominem.

                  Are you honestly saying that this story should NOT have come to light ?

                  What is the media obligated to bury such stories lest they have all the context and have multiple confirmations ?

                  Did that happen with the allegations in the Steele Dossier ?

                  Did you say “wait a minute – maybe there is some hypothetical context that makes this all innocent” – then ?

                  You are a hypocrite.

                  You bought hook line and sinker what is increasingly likely ACTUAL russian disinformation – and that means YOU were duped by the Russians. Hillary was duped by the Russians, Mueller was duped by the Russians, and the DOJ/FBI was duped by the Russians, and finally it means that Russia was actually trying to get CLINTON elected. Put simply you were wrong about everything then.

                  There is no reason to trust you now.

                  Anyone who sold the collusion delusion is not credible and should not be trusted on the Biden laptop.

                  The “transparent propganda” is yours – and your not even good at it.

                6. I beleive Hunter Biden received about 800K from Burisma – the total amount from China was Billions – though that was to invest – it is likely that Hunter Biden’s share is only millions.

                  So you think Hunter owed Joe Biden several million dollars ?

                  I would note that if you give your son over 35K and you do not explicitly do so as a loan reported on your taxes – then it is income and it is taxable – you have crowed that Joe shared all his taxes – where is the loan ?

                  You lefties are so incapable of critical thinking. Your arguments are SHALLOW, you do not grasp that your own claims have implications.

                  I would note that Pail Manafort is in jail right now for loaning HIMSELF money without proper documentation and failing to report it as income.

                  1. “You lefties are so incapable of critical thinking. Your arguments are SHALLOW, you do not grasp that your own claims have implications.”

                    That is why neither the news media nor the Bidens can say anything. All explanations lead to bad problems. Sanpete has the same problem. All her rationalizations lead to further problems. The only reason Joe Biden stands today as the Democratic nominee is because the entire left, including the news media and talking heads and including Hollywood, are acting in lockstep fashion knowing that any kink in the armor could cause the entire Biden legacy to fall. Anyone that disagrees is promptly quieted or attacked.

                    1. The reason that Biden can not directly respond is that any response from Biden is a commitment that must fit with anything that is exposed in the future.

                      Biden can say that media experts claim this is Russian disinformation until the cows come home – those on the left are too stupid to grasp that Biden KNOWS whether it is disinformation or not.

                      I would note that the Biden camp has already admitted to the authenticity of substantial portions of this.

                      So if the damaging information is authentic – how is the “disinformation” nonsense relevant ?

                      The facts are we do know there is foriegn intervention in 2020 – it is real but like 2016 not actually consequential – and it ALL – including Russia favors Biden. That should surprise no one.

                      But if Joe and the media say “russian disinformation” often enough Biden voters may be unable to grasp that there is an avalanche of damning documents, this is just the latest.

                      This is a big deal because:

                      It means the media is LYING big time and is bent over backwards trying to save Biden.m
                      That Social Media is trying to supress this and other damaging stories.
                      That the FBI continues to be politically corrupt – or this information would have gotten tot he HPSCI during faux impeachment a we would never have had impeachment.
                      That the impeachment itself was more faux than thought – clearing there is 1000 times more evidence than is needed to ask for an investigation of the Bidens.
                      That Democrats such as Pelosi and Schiff are corrupt – because they are shilling for Joe instead of distancing themselves from this.

                      It means that once again we have the equivalent of the Collusion delusion – a massive lie that takes years to collapse because those on the left are too stupid and guilible and because so much power is behind trying to pretend it is true.

            2. It’s possible that the text came from him, but I don’t see how to determine the probability, and John is the one who has the burden for proving his claim.

              1. I think it probable given the history of Russian hacking, the lack of denials from those involved, and the fact that the Russian narrative supporters have to distort the material to make it fit their narrative. They could easily have made up stuff that actually supports their case if they were making the emails/texts up.

                Yes, John has the burden of proof, but in this case the weakness of his case is more obviously in reading the material than establishing its authenticity.

                1. SP – this is not a hack – only Twitter is stupid enough to push that.

                  There are only a few ways it could be “russian disinformation”.

                  The simplest is pretty complex. The GRU spent years fabricating thousands of emails and pictures and videos – getting pretty much everything right, and then put it on a Mac Laptop and had an agent deliver it to this computer repair shop.
                  You think that is likely ? You think that would not get caught quickly ?

                  Amnd why do you beleive that now and not with the Steele dossier – which was OBVIOUSLY uncorraborateable garbage.
                  Further the Steele Dossier was about 30 pages and fell apart to anyone with reasonable intelligence quickly.

                  This is a huge forgery if you are correct – and if so it has held together well.

                  Finally the FBI has had almost 2 years to verify the contents – if it is a Fraud – they can say that right out in the open – Christopher Wray can have a press conference and say “We received this 2years ago, reviewed it and found it to be disinformation”

                  It only took Comey 6 months to determine that the Steele Dossier was crap – though he never was willing to say that publicly until subpeoned before the Senate.

                  1. John, the simplest would be for the GRU to hack HB’s iCloud account, copy it all, and then put a mixture of authentic and fake emails on a laptop and drop it off. That would also be more effective than your fantasy where everything is fake, as the authentic ones would provide cover for the fake ones.

                    1. Not merely poor thinking, but shallow thinking.

                      Just as an art forgery is very nearly impossible, forging the complete contents of a hard drive in a plausible way is very nearly impossible.

                    2. 1) The Does not hack – this is part of the nonsense of the collusion delusion.

                      Russia has a different model than the US, China, NK, ..

                      Russia provides protection for essentially criminal hackers in eastern europe in return for performing tasks in the service of russia.

                      2). You say they could hack HB’s ICloud account – is that a guess or do you know something ?
                      Regardless, many of the damaging emails have already been confirmed as authentic.

                      3). You now have some operative dropping off a laptop – so this operative can forge Hunter Biden’s signature in real time ?
                      It is not hard to forge a signature when you have all the time in the world. But it is far harder to train a person to sign another person’s name in real time.

                      4). I am not fantasinzing – unlike you I am dealing with the know facts as well as the sane probabilities.

                      Absolutely if you are desparate to beleive the Biden’s are innocent you can constract a scenario where The russians have framed them.

                      But it is an infredibly complex scenario requiring not merely Biden’s laptop, but planting emails in the US State Department, Planting bank records in Romania, Planting records in Ukraine, getting myriads of witnesses and participants to lie – somethimes under oath.

                      AND you have to get REAL PEOPLE to authenticate SOME of the fakes you have created.

                      As an example there are lots of emails to/from Biden’s law firm that were to/from/cc’d to the US state department that have been obtained via FOIA.

                      No one has claimed any of those are fake.

                      While those are not the most damning documents – they are still pretty bad, and they are completely consistent with the very damning ones.

                    3. There are only two critical issues:

                      Was Joe Biden aware that his son was selling influence in VP Biden’s name ?
                      Joe has claimed otherwise.
                      While the information from the laptop damningly refutes that, there is much other information from many many sources to confirm VP Biden was told repeatedly by reporters, the state department and others that Hunter was selling access to the VP.

                      Put simply though the laptop is damning on that issue, there is more than enough other evidence to refute Biden’s denial of knowledge.

                      The second is was VP Biden participating in Hunter’s scheme.
                      The Laptop is the first evidence that is incontrovertable that VP Biden not only participated, but was profiting from Hunter Selling Access/Unfluence.

                      But since the laptop has been released some of the most damning emails in that regard have been confirmed by other participants.

                      Everyday more information confirming this comes out.

                      And finally what do we hear from the Biden’s – Crickets.

                      There is no obligation for Joe Biden to deny or explain – but there is also no obligation for anyone to vote for him.

                      But there is another likely reason that the Biden’s are not denying anything.

                      Because the documents are true. A specific denile is powerful – but it is damning to you if it is subsequently rebutted.

              2. This is not hard.

                Is Hunter denying the texts ?

                Is there meta data ?

                Is the rest of the contents authentic ?

                Another test would be “Did you beleive the Steele Dossier was authentic ?” – if you did then whatever you conclude about this- you should invert, because you have bad judgement.

                Another test – “If this was a Text from Don Jr. to Ivanka would you beleive it authentic ?” – if you would then you must accept this under the same circumstances.

                Another test – do you beleive NYT Reporters who write stories based on anonymous tips ? Because this has far more credibility than an anonymous tip.

                Finally – if this was a text from a Mafia Capo to his sister about the Don – it would be admissible in court – and the Don would be convicted.

                There is pretty much only one reason to presume this is false – because you are partisan.

                I will offer you another choice – Vote however you wish in November – with the proviso that you demand that every senator and representative you vote for INSISTS that this is fully investigated after the election and that Biden is impeached and removed if it is true.

                It is that simple. This is either True – in which case you are about to elect the only person that we KNOW ahead of time to be criminally corrupt, or it is false – in which case someone has committed defamation and heinous fraud and should go to jail for a long long time.

                Commit to that!

                There is not a grey area here. The documents is true are damning. If True Biden is a crook and can not be president.
                If False someone else is a fraud and guilty of defamation.

                If you beleive that this is actually Russian disinformation – then what are you going to do about it ?
                You bought a boat load of Russian disinformation when you voted for Clinton and bought into the Collusion Delusion.

                Regardless, the ends do not justify the means. True – Biden MUST either lose or Go. False – someone else must go to jail.

              3. There are not alot of choices here.

                The Text is not likely to have come from Joe Namath.

                But lets presume this “russian disinformation” nonsense is correct. Most of these documents are “authentic” – it is just not possible to forge this much. Lets assume hypothetically that the “smoking gun” texts/emails are russian disinformation – but much of the rest is true.

                As I understand one of the video’s has Hunter Biden sleeping with a 13yr old. Do you grasp the implications of Russia having that if Biden is president ?

                You should. You constantly claimed that Russia had the faux “pee tape” and was blackmailing Trump.

                If as you claim this came from Russia – Why would the Russian’s part with it ? Wouldn’t they WANT Biden elected so they could use it against him ?

                Logic eludes lefties ? Though I find it odd – they jump right to blackmail in cases where it literally is impossible.

                Yates’s claim that Flynn could be blackmail was just stupid. The Russian’s knew that Kislyak’s call was wiretapped by the FBI.
                You can not blackmail someone over something that is known – atleast by those you are trying to keep it from.

                Further Russia goes to Flynn – “Give us the nuclear codes or we will tell Pence that you misrepresented our call” – Really ?
                A 3 star General known for his integrity is going to give yup anything of value to the Russians rather than Tell Pence – Oops, I forgot to mention this ?

                You can not blackmail Flynn with the Kislyak call.

                The Pee Tape would embarras Trump if it existed – but those of you on the left already beleive it does.

                But Hunter Biden committing statutory rape – that is blackmail material.
                So the Russian’s are going to give that up ?

                Really ?

                1. They pretty much have figured out that it is Hunter’s laptop and now they have a signature on the work authorization. I hear it matches Hunter Biden’s signature. Why isn’t that news for the MSM? Why is such news blocked by FB and Twitter.

                  How come mis-information on George Bush (Dan Rather) and Donald Trump (Steele Dossier) flourished in the MSM and there was no censorship?

                  We have seen important documents from the laptop being confirmed by third parties and the other party involved in the email transfer. No denial from Biden. No questions asked of Biden though one got through and the rest of the media laughed shirking their responsibility. I remember news blackouts from Russia decades ago when the communist government wanted to hide something. Americans, whether left or right, looked at the Russian media in horror and felt secure and superior that the American media would never let that happen.

                  But it did. The American media for the most part have done what the Russians did at the height of the cold war and today we are hearing glee from Americans that are supposed to be free. The fourth check on government is gone while some on this blog play word games. What happened to American values?

                  1. There was already an image of a signature in the first NY Post article, so this isn’t new.

                    The NYP didn’t say where the image came from, and unless they were given the original document and copied it themselves, there’s no reason to think it’s a copy of the original. Then you’d need to compare it with earlier known copies of HB’s signature.

                    Does the shop owner still have the original? Let him present it and testify under oath.

                    1. If it was not – do you think the Biden camp would not be ranting about that constantly ?

                    2. Really ?
                      Are you accusing Micheal Goodwin (the reporter of this story) of forging the recept or Hunter’s signature ?

            3. The truth is this is Hunter Biden’s laptop and his emails. And he is in a position to make the claims which he did.

              The onus of proof is on them now. You Peter, if you contend it is “disinformation” contrary to Ratcliffe DNI.

              Not those who exposed the truth.

              Now since Schiff says he has the intel, which apparenlty the DNI in charge of intel did not, let’s hear Schiff come out with it.

              Or are we peasants simply just supposed to take Schiff’s word for it?

              You are being fooled, or you pretend otherwise. The truth here is pretty obvious but it comes as no surprise Democrat cheerleaders reject it.

              Poor Joe to be cursed with a klutz like Hunter for a son. Well, not so poor, gosh, the 50% rake off the top was kind of steep!

              I wonder how did Hunter pay. Bags of money? Transfer by wire? Checks in the mail?

              Maybe FBI has a good reason not to be talking about this after all.

              1. What person on the Planet beleives Schiff EVER when he claims to have evidence of anything.

                The man has been caught lying repeatedly.

                No one with any respect for the truth would listen to him again.

              2. The FBI has a huge problem. They were obligated to provide the evidence of this laptop to the house and senate impeachment hearings – and they failed. There is no exception to the requirement to provide exculpatory evidence.

          2. Disinformation is not a person.

            If you wish to claim something is disinformation – you have to demonstrate why.

            We know the provenance of these texts, emails, documents. All of that can be investigated.

            The only missing link is connecting them to Hunter Biden.
            Mr. Paul does not know who dropped the laptop off.

            But we do know that Hunter’s lawyers sought to have the laptop returned. That hail mary ties the laptop to the Biden’s.

            You can not ask for the return of something that is not yours.

            On the flip side – you are postulating a massive and complex fraud and you are claiming that it was done in secret and that almost no one knows about it. Further it must be true that the same fraud involves the documents obtained from the state department by FOIA, as well as testimony of an assortment of ukrainians, Romainian bank records, Hunter Biden’s law firm’s emails.

            All this stuff fits together – therefor it is all part of one forgery – or none of it is.

            If it is not completely impossible this is a forgery it is very very close to impossible.

            1. You’re such an easy mark for disinformation that fits your politics. What’s your source on what HB’s lawyers have asked for? How reliable is that source? How much sense would it make for them to ask the owner to return what he says is in the possession of the FBI? You clearly don’t think critically about what fits your views.

              1. The email from HB’s lawyers.

                BTW what they asked for is irrelevant.

                The fact that the contacted Mr. Paul is what is relevant.
                They had absolutely no reason in the world to contact Mr. Paul if the laptops were not Biden’s.

                I would further note that the Lawyers contaced Paul more than a week before the story broke.

                Si the only way they had of knowing anything about Mr. Paul was from Hunter Biden.

                Logic is not your forte.

                1. The irony just builds and builds. It’s like you have no self-awareness at all.

                  Again, where is exact text of this email you refer to, please give a reliable link for it. Thanks.

                  Once again, your lack of will to understand any alternative to the transparent propaganda you swallow without question is manifest. If someone claims to have something that belongs to you, it makes perfect sense to demand they return it. That could be one way to show they don’t have it. It doesn’t imply any admission that the lawyers believe the other party actually has what they claim to. As Bannon well knows, and you ought to have known before I spelled it out for you.

                  Logic indeed.

                  1. “The irony just builds and builds. It’s like you have no self-awareness at all.”

                    False and irrelevant – the facts are on the table – make an argument using them – or go home.

                    “Again, where is exact text of this email you refer to, please give a reliable link for it. Thanks.”
                    I have provided it SEVERAL TIMES. Google is your friend.

                    There is no “reliable source” issue here. The NY Post has printed the texts and emails. They have identified exactly where they came from.
                    There is no disagreement over the words in the texts – this is not anonymous source material, it is also not secret material.
                    NY Post has not printed their oppinion of the emails and texts – they printed the emails and texts.

                    You can try to make your Russian disinformation nonsense fly – but when that fails you are left with the emails as they are written.
                    It is irrelevant what the “source is” if the actual documents are provided – I know that concept is foreign to you, but sources are reliable because they provide information that is from the real world – not because you like what they say.

                    “Once again, your lack of will to understand any alternative to the transparent propaganda you swallow without question is manifest.”
                    This is not a question of will – nor propoganda – the emails say what they say. Any reading beyond the plain one is YOUR burden to prove.

                    The emails and texts were provided in their entirety.

                    “If someone claims to have something that belongs to you, it makes perfect sense to demand they return it.”

                    “That could be one way to show they don’t have it.”
                    Nope, it would be a fraud on the court to claim ownership of something that is not yours – even to try this ass backwards approach to prove it is not. But then ethics and honesty are not your forte.

                    If the hard drives are not Biden’s and the information is false the legal remedy is a defamation claim – that is both ethical, and legal.

                    “It doesn’t imply any admission that the lawyers believe the other party actually has what they claim to.”
                    Actually it does.

                    “As Bannon well knows”
                    Your not smart enough to second guess Bannon.

                    “and you ought to have known before I spelled it out for you.”
                    All you have done is demonstrated that you are unethical.

                    Making a false legal claim of ownership – no matter what your motive – is unethical, and probably illegal – it is attempted theft through process of law.

                    The legal means to confront false information is a defamation claim.
                    If this is a fraud The Biden;’s has a defamation claim against the Post that is gargantuan.
                    Why aren’t they filing it ?

                    The first step – the simple first step is to demand a retraction – they have not done that.
                    That is what you do when a false story is run.

                    Grow up – join the real world. There is such a thing as ethics.

                    Do not sell out your country or your office for personal profit.
                    Do not lie – to the public or to the courts (or to anyone)

                    If someone falsely accuses you of either – say so. Directly confront your accusers. Deny the accusations, demand retractions.

                    That is what HONEST people do.
                    Dishonest people do the nonsense you are claiming Biden is doing.

                    Now, both logic and ethics elude you.

                    And you really do not think through your arguments very well.

                    You never think if I claim this – what is the obvious result.
                    You keep making up rationalizations for the Biden’s – without grasping that those rationalizations have consequences and meaning.

                    One of the things about the Truth is that it holds together – you do not have to think about the consequences of telling the truth – it is the truth, you KNOW the consequences. But lies are harder. Builing a tapestry of lies that holds together is damn near impossible – just as the collusion delussion eventually came apart.

                    If as you claim this is a fraud – it is likely to be shredded quickly – and not be speculation and hypotheticals – but by FACTS that refute it.

                2. “They had absolutely no reason in the world to contact Mr. Paul if the laptops were not Biden’s.”

                  John I do not deal in computer technology, social media etc. but I have an Apple computer which I believe is the brand Hunter had. The FBI has the computer. I don’t know why there is so much discussion as to who has ownership of the Computer. That information should be released by the FBI, but there are partisans working there as we have found out from the Steele Dossier, Mike Flynn, etc.

                  Apple knows who bought my computer, has a record of payment and a whole bunch of information about me including the problems I had during my ownership. If a detective took my computer he would find my DNA on it along with my fingerprints. One would be able to track my emails and who they were addressed to along with a whole host of other information perhaps even including my texts. One might even be able to trace where I have been and when.

                  All of that should make the issue of ownership moot, but it isn’t.

                  1. You are correct that the ownership of the computer can be tracked.
                    And that is a good point.

                    In fact the provenence of most parts in the computer can be checked.

                    The claim regarding the DNC emails – was NOT that they were false, but they were hacked by Russia – an odd claim.

                    If I confess to murder in an email and the russians hack it and release it on wikileaks – are the police going to investigate Russia – or the murder I confessed to.

                    The DNC had the opportunity to claim the emails were a fraud.

                    I have noted repeatedly that you can not know the source of a hack. In theory ANYTHING electronic can be faked.
                    But faking a hack is trivial – the actual core information related to the proof of the hack is small there are only a few things you must get right to fake the source. Further even errors are not a huge problem – it is impossible to tell if an error is deliberate and misleading or a real accident and pointing to the real source.

                    But the same is not true of thousands of emails. While in theory it is possible to produce a perfect forgery. Billions of bits of information have to be correct. Unlike an error in a hack, an error in a forgery means it is a forgery.

                    As I recall a file on an Apple HD has 3 timestamps – everyone of them must be correct. All Files have tails. That is the data contained in the hard disk that is not part of the file. As an example if a file is 384 bytes long – and a file allocation unit is 4096 bytes – there will be about 3800 bytes of data that is on the disk but not in the file – that has the contents of whatever was there before – so you have to get that right.
                    If you forge a Biden email – and the tail of the file does not contain data that is likely to be found on hunter bidens computer – it is likely a fraud.

                    The reason the DNC did not claim the emails were frauds – is becauce that claim would have been easy to disprove and then they would be in trouble.

                    So far the Biden’s are saying nothing – they are making claims through surogtes like SP – because if their surogates are wrong – it does not trap the Biden’s

                    But there are only two choices for Biden here – the documets are a fraud, or they are the truth.

                    Clinton and the DNC could live through some people buying that the emails were the truth.

                    Biden can not. Clintons emails were dirty politics.
                    Biden’s are evidence of a heinous crime.

                    1. “As I recall a file on an Apple HD has 3 timestamps ”

                      Not only that but the disc itself (if this is a disc) is filled in a certain manner so one can time one entry with another and also note deletions and new entries. Hunter was not careful about anything. I think the only way to prevent that type of forensic evaluation is to fully copy the disc and destroy the original. I’m not sure how memory is entered and stored today which is probably what you refer to in the 3 timestamps. Is the old method of sleuthing gone in that memory is not stored in such a reliable fashion? You touched on this a bit but it is all difficult to understand unless one has deep knowledge of memory storage. Superficial knowledge hurt Oliver North who didn’t know all he erased were the FAT files.

                    2. There is a world of difference between hacking – computer attacks over the internet – which are incredibly easy to forge, and forgery where everything must be right.

                      When you hack someone you can get all kinds of things wrong and it is not possible to tell if that is a mistake that points back to you, or a deliberate deciption – a false flag. With a Hack we KNOW at the start that some data deception occurred we are just trying to tell what is a lie and what is the truth. And it is not possible.

                      With forgery everything must be perfect. What is visible must be correct, what is not visible must be correct, patterns that people are not even aware of must be correct. Even copying everything onto a clean drive does not work as there is a finger print to that that is different from creating and using information on an active computer.

                      It may not be possible to determine who the forger was. But it is absolutely possible to determine forensically whether the documents as original and authentic or planted.

                      BTW you can also verify that from a DD copy of the original, which is near certain how the Computer service coppied the HD’s.

                  2. I would note – the FBI has had this laptop for almost 2 years.

                    Once again we have the FBI hiding things to harm Trump.

                    They had thus during the impeachment.

                    These emails are exculpatory evidence for Trump.
                    Why did the FBI not provide them to the house ?

                    1. “Once again we have the FBI hiding things to harm Trump.”

                      This is very dangerous and can cost America its freedom. The left is always talking about the powerful taking advantage of the people but what the left is supporting is an elitist government run by billionaires and the politically powerful. They will decide what freedoms the people have just like occurs in China.

                      That is why the left supports globalism and outsourcing along with uninhibited immigration. The government will support the individual with all sorts of benefits but as soon as that individual steps out of line those benefits will be discontinued.

                      Anyone that wants to live in a free America unafraid to stand up for their rights by necessity has to vote for Trump. Any other vote is a vote that can lead to a permanent restriction of American rights. Trump will only be around for four more years and to date has demonstrated no desire to exceed the normal limits of the Presidency. Quite the contrary, a corrupt bureaucracy has taken political power. They and many of the politically powerful if given control will not be likely to give it up.

    5. Biden was asked by a reporter if he ever discussed Hunter’s China deal with him. This was after it was noted that Hunter traveled to China on AF2 with his father. VP Biden responded that he never discussed Hunter’s business dealing with him. Sorry that I can’t be specific about the date he responded to the question or who the reporter was but it was during an earlier campaign stop.

        1. SP it is clear you are not actually following any of this.

          Please go read the actual emails in the NY Post article or wherever you can find them.

          It is not my job to read for you.

          You are responsible for your own judgements, oppinions, and votes.
          The leas you could do is to be informed.

          And informed is not familiar with lots of oppinions that afree with you – it is familiar with facts, with primary sources.

          1. That’s 100% empty hand waving, of course. When you develop enough interest in truth to actually support it with facts, please do.

            1. What nonsense.

              All the emails and texts are available, as are the photos and video’s

              You the press, the left has everything you need to discredit them if false.

              And if they are false I truly want you to do so.

              If this is actual fraud and defamation – then the Post should be sued out of existance and alot of people should go to jail.

              But it is not – and we both know it.

              And there is no middle ground here – this is not merely propoganda or disinformation – it is serious defamantion with malice and fraud.
              It is a crime if it is false, and it is a massive tort if it is false.

              Conversely if it is true the entire Biden family is crooked and Joe Biden was selling his office.

              Many things in the world are not black and white – this is.

              You can read. I have provided a few of the emails and texts, regardless they are readily available.

              I would say judge for yourself – but you clearly have no capacity for judgement.

              You can not make up your mind whether they are authentic, disinformation or just mean something radically different than their clear meaning.

            2. I would note that if the plain meaning of these documents is not clear to you – then you are unable to communicate with anyone outside your own ideological bubble.

              We communicate with words. We must have a common clear meaning to words to exchange facts, ideas, to communicate.

              If these texts and emails do not say what most of us see as their obvious meaning – then human communication is not possible.

              It is not critical that the word red means the light wavelength from 625-740nm. What matters is that we use the same word to mean that wavelength and color. Otherwise we can not communicate about that color.

              When Hunter complains that he must give 50% of his earnings to Joe – what does that mean to you – cookies ? Social Security ?

              From the perspective of criminality – does it matter if it is 50% or 10% ?

              Or are you claiming that Hunter is speaking metaphorically ?

              When the Burisma executive thanks Hunter for setting up a meeting and for the time spent with Joe – I presume that time spent was in the past – i.e. the meeting took place. What does that mean to you ?

              You have your head in the sand.

              There is not much wiggle room to distort any of this. The meaning is not unclear.
              Hunter was trying to communicate with Naomi – and the meaning is pretty clear to the rest of us.

              The Burisma Executive was trying to communicate with Hunter – and the meaning is pretty clear to the rest of us.

              In both cases it has to be – otherwise you are essentially arguing they are communicating in code.

              1. And yet more empty hand waving, laden with thick unintended irony. If you spent a fraction of the time you use in going on and on here about the wrongs of others, in questioning your own assumptions instead, you might learn something. You know that story about the mote and the beam? It’s where it is for a reason.

                1. “And yet more empty hand waving, laden with thick unintended irony. If you spent a fraction of the time you use in going on and on here about the wrongs of others, in questioning your own assumptions instead, you might learn something. You know that story about the mote and the beam? It’s where it is for a reason.”

                  Do you know how to make an argument ?

                  Attacking your opponent is just ad hominem – it is fallacious, bad form and is “empty had waving”

                  You have failed miserably at your grammar nonsense.

                  DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT ?

                  In another Post Turley notes that Cricketts is all we have heard from Biden.

                  There are claims here that are very easy to address – if false. But they require committing to a story – and that is very dangerous when there is material held back.

                  You like to defame people and rant about evil right wingers – well Bannon is involved in this and one of his favorite tricks is to reveal enough to generate a story and then let the target of his story sell their denial – and THEN push more information to discredit them further.

                  Biden may be demented – but his team is not stupid. They KNOW that there is only one response that does not have high risk – and that is the truth. Anything else is likely to be subsequently disproven by further material.

                  So if the Truth is as you say – why aren;t they saying that ?

                  Cricketts from Biden, and “transparent propoganda” from you.

                  1. Again I suggest you look into and take to heart the lesson of the story of the mote and the beam. The level of self-awareness you show is close to nil.

                    1. I am not interested in debating my self awareness – as you are wrong, and it is irrelevant.

                      I can be blind to nearly everything but myself – so long as I am correct on the facts it is irrelevant.

                      You keep making these bizzare left wing arguments.

                      I do not care about “your truth”.

                      I care about THE TRUTH.

                      Your opinions of tangents that have nothing to do with facts, logic, reason are not relevant to THE TRUTH,.

    6. Joe Buy-den said he had no knowledge of crack addicted son Hunter’s business. The emails confirm Joe L-I-E-D.

  16. Prof. Turley – why the nonsense about some foreign interferance ?

    Is there actual evidence ? And even if so – does it matter ?

    While the assorted issues regarding Hunter Biden are disturbing and salacious.

    The critical issue is NOT the provenance of this information, but whether it is the truth, and whether it is damning evidence that Joe Biden lied and that Joe Biden was selling influence as VP.

    Those are the only things that matter.

    The timing does not matter.

    The sources do not matter.

    The Truth of the information matters.

    So lets look for the clues this is or is not the truth.

    1. Ha, it may the the only thing that matters to you, but many of us care when a foreign power such as Putin successfully influences a US election through selective and/or illegal exploitation of hacking and social media.

      1. More importantly, what ideas have been embraced by Joe Biden? Kamala Harris? the DNC? social media / Big Tech? the liberal media?

        Bishop Robert Barron explains these ideas and the four thinkers who have had a profound impact in shaping the world that we are confronting: Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Michel Foucault. Once we understand some of their most basic ideas, we will recognize their influence everywhere today.

        Ideas Have Consequences: The Philosophers Who Shaped 2020

      2. ‘The Hunter Biden emails were fabricated by the same Russian operative who beat up Jussie Smollett, wrote homophobic slurs on Joy Reid’s blog, and hacked Steve Scully.’ @eddiezipperer

      3. “Ha, it may the the only thing that matters to you, but many of us care when a foreign power such as Putin successfully influences a US election through selective and/or illegal exploitation of hacking and social media.”

        So much to unpack.

        1). Todate it has not been established that the DNC emails were “hacked” much less that they were hacked by Russia.
        Go read the Senate Testimony of the CrowdStrike VP. Additionally VIPS – William Binney and several other Former NSA experts found that the DNC emails were almost certainly leaked not hacked. Assange has insisted from the start the emails were leaked not hacked.
        The DNC was actually hacked twice in 2015 and 2016 – and that is well documented. But there is no evidence that the emails were removed during those hacks or that the hacks were by Russia.

        That said – I will fully support efforts to secure computer systems from hacking.
        But once information is released into the world – there is nothing you can do about it. You could try prosecuting Russia for hacking.
        But then you would have to allow other foreign countries to prosecute the US. Stuxnet which was used to delay the Iranian Nuclear program was a US hack. Are you saying the US can not do that ?

        2). There was no “successful” use of Social Media by the Russians – their Social media efforts were garbage – which anyone who saw the adds knows. Further they ran adds for Trump, Sanders and Clinton in about equal numbers – very bad adds.

        But lets assume that Russia ran a brilliant campaign favoring Trump and persuaded millions of voters.

        Guess what – that is free speech. There is nothing you can do. There is nothing you should do.
        And no sane person is going to start a war with russia over it. and there is nothing more of consequence you can do.

        You can not stop Putin from voicing his views in a US election anymore than you can stop John Oliver from doing so, or the Guardian.

        You lefties fail to grasp you do not and can not ever have the power to impose the rules you wish to make.

        You can not prevent foreign nations for trying to hack – just as the US does.
        And you have neither the right nor the power to stop them from trying to persuade.

        1. Both the Mueller investigation and the GOP led Senate Intelligence Committee Report – released in August – verified Russia’s hacking of DNC emails.

          “The Mueller report contains new information about how the Russian government hacked documents and emails from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee .

          At one point, the Russians used servers located in the U.S. to carry out the massive data exfiltration effort, the report confirms.

          Much of the information was previously learned from the indictment of Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, the Russian officer in charge of Unit 26165. Netyksho is believed to be still at large in Russia.

          But new details in the 488-page redacted report released by the Justice Department on Thursday offered new insight into how the GRU operatives hacked.

          The operatives working for the Russian intelligence directorate, the GRU, sent dozens of targeted spearphishing emails in just five days to the work and personal accounts of Clinton Campaign employees and volunteers, as a way to break into the campaign’s computer systems.

          The GRU hackers also gained access to the email account of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, of which its contents were later published.

          Using credentials they stole along the way, the hackers broke into the networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee days later. By stealing the login details of a system administrator who had “unrestricted access” to the network, the hackers broke into 29 computers in the ensuing weeks, and more than 30 computers on the DNC.

          The operatives, known collectively as “Fancy Bear,” comprised several units tasked with specific operations. Mueller formally blamed Unit 26165, a division of the GRU specializing in targeting government and political organizations, for taking on the “primary responsibility for hacking the DCCC and DNC, as well as email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign,” said the Mueller report.

          The hackers used Mimikatz, a hacking tool used once an intruder is already in a target network, to collect credentials, and two other kinds of malware: X-Agent for taking screenshots and logging keystrokes, and X-Tunnel used to exfiltrate massive amounts of data from the network to servers controlled by the GRU. Mueller’s report found that Unit 26165 used several “middle servers” to act as a buffer between the hacked networks and the GRU’s main operations. Those servers, Mueller said, were hosted in Arizona — likely as a way to obfuscate where the attackers were located but also to avoid suspicion or detection.

          In all, some 70 gigabytes of data were exfiltrated from Clinton’s campaign servers and some 300 gigabytes of data were obtained from the DNC’s network.

          Meanwhile, another GRU hacking unit, Unit 74455, which helped disseminate and publish hacked and stolen documents, pushed the stolen data out through two fictitious personas. DCLeaks was a website that hosted the hacked material, while Guccifer 2.0 was a hacker-like figure who had a social presence and would engage with reporters.

          Under pressure from the U.S. government, the two GRU-backed personas were shut down by the social media companies. Later, tens of thousands of hacked files were funneled to and distributed by WikiLeaks .

          Mueller’s report also found a cause-and-effect between Trump’s remarks in July 2016 and subsequent cyberattacks.

          “I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” said then-candidate Trump at a press conference, referring to emails Clinton stored on a personal email server while she headed the State Department. Mueller’s report said “within approximately five hours” of those remarks, GRU officers began targeting for the first time Clinton’s personal office.

          More than a dozen staffers were targeted by Unit 26165, including a senior aide. “It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public,” said Mueller.

          Mueller said the Trump campaign made efforts to “find the deleted Clinton emails.” Trump is said to have privately asked would-be national security advisor Michael Flynn, since convicted following inquiries by the Special Counsel’s office, to reach out to associates to obtain the emails. One of those associates was Peter Smith, who died by suicide in May 2017, who claimed to be in contact with Russian hackers — claims which Mueller said were not true….”

          1. JF.

            I am interested in FACTS – not political reports.

            The FACT is to this date there is no PROOF that the DNC emails were released by Hacking, much less that the Hack was by the Russians.

            The only actual investigation of this incident was done by Crowdstrike. And their VP testified to the Senate that he could no establish who hacked the DNC or that the emails were removed by that hack.

            To this date Assange claims the emails were leaked.

            VIPS – former NSA security experts reported that:
            It is more probable the emails were leaked rather than hacked.
            That even if they were hacked they were transfered over a high speed link – a link too fast to be accross the atlantic.

            It is not possible to ascertain the source of any hack without inside knowledge. Not only does every nation have each other nations hacking tools, but every decent hacked in the world does.

            It is absolutely impossible to tell the source of any hack via computer forensics. Even “mistakes” by the “hacker” can easily be false flags – or double false flags.

            Look at Stuxnet. The only way that it was ultimately confirmed that Stuxnet was a US operation was because of the material that Snowden released. The whole world blamed Israel.

            It is not possible to know the source of a hack forensically – PERIOD.

            Any report that claims otherwise is garbage.

            Regardless I am interested in FACTS – not reports.

            Presumably YOU accept that the CIA, the FBI, the DOJ, Congress have been WRONG about myriads of things in the past – even if we do not personally aggree on every single error. Sadam’s WMD program is one Glaring example.

            Your Hero Mueller, was WRONG in nearly every FBI investigation that he was involved in.

            He was WRONG in the Richard Jewel Investigation, in the Anthrax letters investigation TWICE.

            Provide FACTS to support your arguments – not the oppinions of people with a poor track record.

              1. You have not provided facts.
                You keep fixating on nonsense like Mueller – not only is Mueller bad oppinion rather than fact, it is also meaningless – contra your nonsense it did not actually find anything.

                As to your specifics – the FACTs are a partisan democratic IT firm that observed one of the hacks in REAL TIME, was ultimately unable to state as a matter of fact that the source for the hack was Russia – they continue to assert – outside of a hearing an OPPINION. But in a hearing under oath they admit they do not know.

                They FURTHER admit they do not even know the emails were exfiltrated via the hack.

                And finally as to Mueller’s claim – it is FALSE. The hack predates Trump’s remarks. Mueller is just full of Schiff.

                The date of Trump’s remarks is known. the Dates of the Hacks are also known. The first was in July 2015 the second started in March 2016 and continued through June and Crowdstrike observed it onsite from mid may to mid june before shutting it down.

                1. John Say, see if you candle this fact:

                  This is a direct quote from the GOP led Senate Intelligence Committee Report which was published in August (2+ months ago):

                  “Hack and Leak

                  (U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian
                  effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak
                  information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow’s intent was
                  to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the
                  Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the
                  U.S. democratic process.
                  Wiki-leaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian
                  influence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence
                  effort. The Committee found significant indications that (REDACTED)
                  At the time of the first WikiLeaks releases, the U.S. Government had not yet declared WikiLeaks a hostile
                  organization and many treated it as a journalistic entity.

                  (U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump
                  Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump’s electoral
                  prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases,
                  created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following
                  thdr release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the
                  attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and
                  WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort. The Committee found no
                  evidence that Campaign officials received an authoritative government notification that the hack
                  was perpetrated by the Russian government before October 7, 2016, when the ODNI and DHS
                  issued a joint statement to that effect. However, the Campaign was aware of the extensive media
                  reporting and other private sector attribution of the hack to Russian actors prior to that point.

                  (U) Trump and senior Campaign offici.als sought to obtain advance information about
                  WikiLeaks’s planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain
                  inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump
                  and senior Campaign offictals on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that
                  Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more
                  releases would be forthcoming. The Committee could not reliably determine the extent.of
                  authentic, non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the


                  1. You continue to constantly claim that various peoples claims or conclusions are the same as facts.

                    The KNOWN FACTS are:

                    The DNC was hacked twice – the sources of these hacks may not be the same and is not and can not be known absent a verifiable leak from the actual hackers. That has not occurred. It is beyond the capability of computer forensics today to identify the source of a hack.
                    Any clue you think tells you the source can be faked easily and even script kiddies plant false flags.

                    There is also no evidence that the DNC emails were exfiltrated from the DNC servers via Hacking.

                    Finally there is some strong but not conclusive forensic evidence that the DNC emails were exfiltrated by USB Stick.

                  2. With respect to Wikileaks:

                    Contra the left Wikileaks is not Russia.

                    Stone had no direct access to wikileaks.

                    NO ONE had foreknowledge of what Wikileaks was releasing.

                    Much of your claims boils down to politics is illegal if practiced by Republicans.

                    The only actual connections between a 2016 political campaign and Russian spies was between Hillary For America and the Steele Dossier Sub source.

                    That contact was legal, and it was WORSE than anything the left has accused TFA of.

                    Nothing the Left alleged TFA of doing was illegal, And non of it actually happened.

                    Those are the facts.

                  3. You seem to think I am a republican.

                    If so you have not read much of my posts.

                    I am libertarian.

                    I only have slightly more respect for republican congress critters than democrats.

          2. Trump’s remark regarding the 30,000 missing emails was about the Clinton basement bathroom Email Server – not the DNC emails.

            Had Russia produced the missing emails – and it is near certain they have them, and near certain they will never produce them, Clinton would be in Jail right now.

            As to Mueller’s nonsense – How about EVIDENCE ?

            I do not honestly believe that Mueller has a clue regarding the crap you cite.

            Mueller indicted 3 Russian firms in the US regarding their participation in all of this. He did not expect that one of them would actually go to the trouble of defending itself. The case was ultimately withdrawn when the Judge demanded proof for the allegations Mueller was making.

            Not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not proof by the proponderance of evidence, but the incredibly low standard of proof needed to get into a federal courthouse. Mueller was unable to do so and ultimately dropped the case rather than face contempt charges from the Judge.

            If you do not gather I have a very dim view of Mueller. I was attacking him when leading Republicans were claiming he was respected.
            Mueller has been personally involved in every major FBI fiasco of the past 40 years.

            But it is self evident that Mueller is corrupt – as he continued a criminal investigation AFTER it was known to him and his own people that the foundations of the investigation were rotten. That he was being used by Russians.

          3. “within approximately five hours” of those remarks, GRU officers began targeting for the first time Clinton’s personal office.”

            This would be utterly false.

            Why don;t you actually read the Crowdstrike report.

            There were TWO separate hacks of the DNC – the FIRST occured in July of 2015 – before Trump was a candidate. It continued through early 2016.

            The 2nd was initiated in March of 2016 – long before Trump’s remarks regarding the 30,000 emails.

            That hack was discovered in late may, reported crowdstrike who then observed the hackers for several weeks before shutting it down.

            All of this BEFORE Trump’s remarks.

            If Mueller claims otherwise – he is making things up.

            AGAIN FACTS – not reports, not oppinions, not anonymous sources.

            Verifiably FACTS.

          4. The North Koreans have a government Hacking group.
            The Chinese have a government hacking group.
            The US has a government hacking group.
            The Israeli’s have a government hacking group.

            The Russian’s likely have the best hacking capability in the world. But it is NOT withing the government, it is NOT done by GRU.

            Russia has a very large body of black hat independent hackers. These hackers pilfer about $30B in financial fraud from the US every year.
            They are completely independent of government. But they depend on Government for protection from foreign criminal prosecution, and in return they periodically take on political assignments by the Russian government.

            The initial claim regarding the DNC hack twas that it was by “Guicifer 2.0” – which would be fully consistent with the Russian process.

            The only problem ? While Gucifer 2.0 claimed responsibility he never had any Clinton documents that were not publicly available from before the hack.

            Regardless, you can not claim the GRU hacked Clinton AND claim it was Guicifer 2.0.

            Of course the facts are it was neither.

            I would note that the tools – Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear that were used to hack the DNC, were also used to hack French TV a few months eariler and those were initially blamed on Russia too. But ultimately turned out to originate in Turkey.

            You are ignorant of the facts.

            Frankly Mueller and his team were idiots.

            Just look at the people involved ?

            You really think Strzok has the capacity to understand complex technical evidence ? He does not even know how to securely communicate with his paramour. Do you really think the guy who altered CIA documents and thought he would not eventually get caught is up to this ?

            Please name the competent people on the Mueller Team ? On any house or senate committee ?

            What does it take for you to grasp that a government job – a high ranking government job is zero guarantee of intelligence – or honesty.

          5. JF – yes Trump sought the Clinton emails. That is not illegal. The crime was removing them from a State Department SCIF and placving them on an insecure home server.

            Of Course the FBI SHOULD have been doing that, but it did not.

            Flynn has not been convicted of anything.
            And the SC offices misconduct in the Flynn case undermines your arguments regarding Mueller.

            If you do not grasp at this time that the SC witheld exculpatory material from Flynn and his attorney’s – and from the defendants Flynn was supposed to testify against – you are clueless. That is corrupt, it is immoral and unethical. And this is the people you trust ?

          6. Do you understand that your own claims regarding Flynn contradict your claims about Mueller and the GRU ?

          7. Mueller’s report also found a cause-and-effect between Trump’s remarks in July 2016 and subsequent cyberattacks.

            I can never figure out if you’re dumb or brazen.

        2. It’s you against US and private intelligence on how the Clinton/DNC emails came to light.

          The hacking and troll farms were by all appearances highly successful. Many who might have voted for Clinton were discouraged enough by all the smoke and lies not to, and the election was very close in key states. And Putin got a lot more than his money’s worth with Trump. I’m sure he’d love to repeat that success.

          At the least, people should point out and condemn foreign interference of that nefarious kind. Those who support it aren’t fit for public office.

          1. Trump has effed up Putin and Putin’s economy more than every other POTUS combined.

            So many lies to tell, and so little time to post them (Progressive lament).

          2. “It’s you against US and private intelligence on how the Clinton/DNC emails came to light.”

            Nope, there were only two actual forensic investigations – that by CrowdStrike and that by VIPS.
            Only the Crowdstike investigation had direct access to the Clinton servers.

            While Crowdstike’s publich conclusion was that it was russian hackers – CrowdStrike is the only Security consultant in the world today that claims to be able to attribute a source to ANY hack forensically – and they have thus far NEVER been right. They were wrong in attributing an puropoortedly artilary hack to Russia – the Artilary was not actually hacked. And they were wrong in attributing another hack to the Chinese.

            Further when under oath Crowdstrike testified that they could not attribute a source to the hack, and they could not show that the emails were exfiltrated by the hacks.

            VIPS using Crowdstike provided information demonstrated that the exfiltration of the emails occured at speeds consistent with copying to a USB stick, and that even if they were exfiltrated by a hack that no high speed data links accross the atlantic are fast enough.

            “The hacking and troll farms were by all appearances highly successful. ”

            Neither you nor Mueller has a clue about Russian hacking.

            Are you really trying to say that the Russian FB adds changed peoples votes ? Really ? Do I need to link to the actual adds ?

            The Russian efforts were “successful” because left wing nuts went apeshit.

            “Many who might have voted for Clinton were discouraged enough by all the smoke and lies not to, and the election was very close in key states.”
            False and irrelevant. As I recall there were 4000 views of the FB adds before the election – and the adds were evenly split between pro clinton, pro trump and pro sanders. And the adds were really really really bad. And they were not “lies” They were just normal bad advocacy adds. And if you were too stupid to see through them – you should not be voting.

            But lets assume that someday some foreign power is absolutely able to persuade US voters to change their vote.

            Guess what – persuasion is ALWAYS legitimate. Nor do you have the ability, right or power to control who engages in persuasion.

            ” And Putin got a lot more than his money’s worth with Trump. I’m sure he’d love to repeat that success.”

            How so ? Energy prices are down – depressing the Russian economy. Trump has Europe building their own self defense at complete odds with the wishes of Putin.

            Before the election but for Nukes Russia was a third rate power, they are even more so today.

            “At the least, people should point out and condemn foreign interference of that nefarious kind.”

            Yes, we should condemn john oliver and Justin Beiber and the Guardian.

            You want to stop the Russians or anyone from hacking our voter databases – 100% behind you.

            Beyond that – I really do not care. If Russia wants to run stupid facebook adds – or even very good ones – I do not care.
            Putin has exactly the same right to express a view in US elections as the myriads of foreign celebraties who do so all the time, and the myriads of foreign press who also do so.

            “Those who support it aren’t fit for public office.”

            This is just nonsense – I support free speech – even for Putin. Anyone who does not is not fit for public office.

            1. When you begin to care whether what you say is true or false, you may be worth talking with. You clearly care far, far more about ideology and partisanship than truth at the moment, taking pure disinformation at face value and refusing to support your claims when challenged.

              No one has challenged anyone’s right to free speech here. If you cared about truth, you would easily see that. You rely on straw men, not a sign of truth seeking.

              1. “When you begin to care whether what you say is true or false, you may be worth talking with.”
                That is precisely the only thing I care about.

                “You clearly care far, far more about ideology and partisanship than truth at the moment, taking pure disinformation at face value and refusing to support your claims when challenged.”

                Lets see in a prior post you claimed these documents were authentic but that I am misreading them.
                Now you are claiming they are disinformation.

                Which is it ?

                If the latter from who ?

                I would note that if false they are more than disinformation or propoganda – they are fraud and defamation.

                If these are false – I would personally on a jury award the bidens hundreds of millions.

                But both of us know they are both authentic and true.

                The Biden’s are crooked. That has been increasingly obvious.

                You are striving desparately to accept a devasting reality – that the left has nominated another crook.

                “No one has challenged anyone’s right to free speech here.”
                False, but irrelevant as that is not what I argued.

                “If you cared about truth, you would easily see that.”
                What I see is a massive effort by the press and the left to supress everything they do not like.
                You talk about ideological blindness – and you are drowning in it.

                “You rely on straw men,”
                Do you know what a straw man is ?
                What argument have I made that is a straw man ?

                If you make moral accusations you fail to support – it is YOU that has failed morally.

                1. “That is precisely the only thing I care about.”

                  Your level of self-awareness is near zero, but no one else can fix that for you.

                  Your inability to follow plain English is again a barrier. Again, as I’ve already explained to you, the spin put on these documents is pure propaganda, which you swallow without question.

                  And obviously the straw man is what I quoted from you, that the complaints here are objections to free speech instead of to hacking, invasion of privacy, malicious distortion, and lies led by hostile foreign forces to harm this country and helped by domestic actors whose personal interests coincide, or so they think.

                  1. This is not about self awareness, It is about facts.

                    The plain reading is Biden met the Burisma #3 – that is the correct english meaning.
                    Your alternates are speculation.

                    I would further note that the FBI has had nearly 2 years to check this out. Plenty of time.
                    SO bring Wray before the Senate and let him answer questions.

                    He should be able to say Yes or No as to whether this is Hunter Biden’s

                    He should be able to say yes or no about meetings, and money transfered to Joe.

                    This should have triggered a QUIET investigation in the FBI.
                    If it did not – the FBI is STILL Corrupt and Wray needs to go, and we should not elect another democrat as president until the FBI is purged of political operatives.

                  2. You can not make a straw man using the actual text – do you even know what a straw man is ?

                    It is not something you do not like.

                    It is when you attack a tangent – such as an alternate reading of the text – rather than the actual text.

                    As noted TWICE this email refers to a meeting that OCCURED.

                    The odds of getting that wrong TWICE are small.

                    It is you that is trying to argue “implied” rather than the clear meaning.

      4. Who is most likely lying? US Intelligence and Congress or Julian Assange who says Russia is not the source of HRC’s emails? No one has ever found Julian to have lied. The others lie every day.

  17. I’ll wait to see the emails before jumping to any conclusions. I be already seen one where the poster claims dates and laptops are the subject. when in fact the email was a lawyer introduction never even mentioned a laptop

Comments are closed.