Will Adam Schiff’s Claims Now Be Blocked On Twitter?

Twitter LogoJust a day after more than 50 former senior intelligence officials signed on to a letter declaring that the recent disclosure of emails from the Hunter Biden laptop is likely Russian disinformation, the FBI reportedly confirmed that the material does not appear to be Russian disinformation. While former officials like John Brennan insisted that the story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” the FBI appears to have found no such evidence thus far. This followed a similar conclusion from the Director of National Intelligence in response to House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff saying that the story was pure Russian disinformation. The question is whether Twitter and Facebook will now bar access to Schiff’s statements pending further review since the actual intelligence agencies are suggesting that this could be democratic disinformation. After all, a former Twitter executive is calling for President Trump to be barred from all social media until after the election to prevent “misinformation.” The burden of being a free speech advocate is the the answer is clearly no. Those, like Schiff, who have called for censoring material on the Internet still should benefit from the protections of free speech.

From a free speech perspective, it does not matter if the Schiff statement and the letter have “all the classic earmarks of a [Democratic] information operation,” we all benefit from a free and robust discussion of such issues. We do not need these companies to censor or inhibit stories to protect us from misinformation.

The letter itself is striking not only in its sweeping conclusion (without actually reviewing the laptop or the emails), but it signatories. This includes some of those who have been associated with the Russian investigation of the Trump campaign, which was based in part on the Steele dossier. That dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign, was recently found to have been based on information supplied by a known Russian agent.

Throughout the campaign, and for many weeks after, the Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the creation of the dossier that was later used to secure a secret surveillance warrant against Trump associates during the Obama administration. Journalists later discovered that the Clinton campaign hid the payments to Fusion as a “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to the law firm. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel at the time said that Clinton lawyer Marc Elias had “vigorously” denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman likewise wrote: “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” Even when Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was questioned by Congress on the matter, he denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who helped devise the contract.

Of course, the contents of the Steele dossier were reported in detail by the media. The reporting covered thousands of articles. It turns out that the FBI warned early in the investigation that Steele may have been used to spread Russian disinformation — a view that was strengthened by the disclosure of Steele’s many source.  To this day, the media has largely ignored this story and how it was used to spread possible Russian disinformation.

If this is not disinformation, the emails magnify concerns that Hunter Biden was involved in a pay-to-play scheme. The emails appear to refer to Joe Biden receiving money and certainly refer to influence peddling.

I have previously stated that I remain suspicious of the timing and means of this disclosure. I want to see it investigation including the role of figures like Rudy Giuliani. Conversely, I have also been struck by what the Biden campaign has not said in response to the story.  Both sides of the story should be investigated.  However, there is a virtual news blackout on the contents of the emails even though (even with hacking) the emails could be legitimate. As discussed earlier, this is what a state media looks like . . . without the state apparatus.  Major networks are still reporting that this is clearly Russian disinformation and dismissing the story.  There is a clear effort to avoid scrutiny of the emails for just two more weeks. However, the disinformation claim is now being reportedly challenged by intelligence agencies. It does not matter. This is a fact too good to check.   We are left with an entire media establishment turning blue holding its collective breath for weeks to see if they can make it across the line. There is an easier approach. It is called journalism. You investigate and report on both sides, including a demand that Hunter and Joe Biden respond to these specific emails as well as conflicting past statements. Sometimes the simplest things are the most difficult.

 

313 thoughts on “Will Adam Schiff’s Claims Now Be Blocked On Twitter?”

  1. And yet nothing happens to Twitter; Google; CNN; etc (the information sector of the Democrat Party), for censoring, shaming or attacking opposition to their ideology. They don’t care that half their customers or audience leave. They still continue to purvey falsehoods and propaganda, because they will still keep the other half, the low-information citizens who don’t seem to care that our rights are under attack by the left.

  2. It is fascinating how after spending 4 years proving the Trump/Russia collusion story was was actually a Clinton/DNC/Russian disinformation effort to undermine Clinton in the 2016 election, the very same people that dragged this country through hell now insist the Biden pay for play crime family is being smeared by the Russians and Trump surrogates to undermine Biden in the 2020 election. The pattern is unmistakable. Everything they have alleged to be true, is true, with the notable exception that they are the ones guilty of what they allege.

    Most people in the public sector take an oath to defend against foreign and domestic enemies. What does a domestic enemy look like? How would they operate in the country? How would we defend ourselves against them if they were the oathtakers? Is this a good list to describe our Domestic Enemies?
    Work to destroy the American governmental and/or legal systems
    Work against the general welfare (or real welfare)
    Put corporate interests ahead of those of human beings and the Planet
    Spin facts to distort truth, or simply perpetuate outright lies
    Work to deny voting rights
    Work to weaken government protections
    Put personal profit before country
    Involve America in unnecessary conflicts
    Condone and promote torture or war crimes
    Weaken our food and energy security
    https://tomdwyer.com/2018/newsletters/toms-tidbits-feb-mar-2018/

    1. Olly:

      It’s crazy. There is no reasoning with them. I have been unable to get a single one of my Democrat friends and family to admit that the entire Russia collusion story was actually done by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, not Trump. They won’t read the findings. Just refuse to accept a single fact that disproves their feelings on the matter.

      And when I told them that it was Joe Biden, not Trump, who engaged in a quid pro quo with Ukraine, they just refused to read any facts that disproved their feelings.

      Now, I tell them that Democrats are again pretending it’s a Russian conspiracy to protect their candidate, and they just don’t want to know.

      Willful blindness, Pavlovian training, or impenetrable ignorance. I don’t know how to describe the phenomena, but it’s persistent. They just blink at me and repeat tinfoil hat conspiracies or outright disinformation, such as claiming that Trump called racists “very fine people.” Oh, and as for the latter, I’ve sent them video of his entire statement (and I don’t mean racists, who should be condemned totally), the transcript, major journalists admitting they were wrong…they just glass over and let it pass through them without noting it. Then they repeat the same lie again.

      Is this some sort of brainwashing?

      How do these people become deprogramed? There is no reason, not even among politicized academics, as sacrilegious as that sounds.

      1. How do these people become deprogramed?

        Karen,
        This interview has been posted here before and to answer your question, it’s worth repeating. Keep in mind that this was a 1984 interview. His estimate to fix this problem was if we were able to start turning things around then. Instead, the demoralization was put on steroids and as you can see, our system of education is completely under Marxist control. Buckle up.

        Referring to such people, Bezmenov said:

        “They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You can not change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.”…Demoralization is a process that is “irreversible”. Bezmenov actually thought (back in 1984) that the process of demoralizing America was already completed. It would take another generation and another couple of decades to get the people to think differently and return to their patriotic American values, claimed the agent.
        https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/yuri-bezmenov?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4

      2. Karen,
        And this article demonstrates how our educational system has been compromised.

        While the Association of American Universities claimed the investigation “is a partisan and politically driven attack on America’s leading research universities,” Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said that the report demonstrates “pervasive noncompliance” from higher education institutions that have “significant foreign entanglement.”

        “For decades enforcement was lax, but not anymore,” she said. “We took action to make sure the public is afforded the transparency the law requires.”

        The report follows a bipartisan congressional report which found “70% of schools that house a Confucius Institute — a Chinese language program funded by the Chinese government — failed to disclose its financial ties to the Education Department.”
        https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/21/top-u-s-universities-caught-underreporting-funding-from-china-other-foreign-adversaries/

      3. I have encountered the same phenomenon among my friends and colleagues. I truly do not understand it. Why have supposedly rational people become so profoundly invested?

        1. They are responding to social cues which relate to perceptions of popularity and power. They are responding to sophisticated emotional manipulation

          The answer is not ceaseless reasoning. The answer is that we need to dispense with endless which impotently wastes time and energy, & speak with our own cues of social proof and power

          We also need to reach people emotionally.

          Negative emotions are part of this.
          They tap into envy, and we can too
          They tap into fear, and we can too
          they tap into anger, and we can too

          Why is this licit? Because survival is its own justification.

          negative emotions fire in your reptile brain. reasoning fires in your cortex. negative emotions are always more compelling

          oh that’s awful some petty moralists will say. hmm, ok, then let the noble losers step aside while people with will and determination act

          2 weeks to hour of decision. How many new voters have you signed up?
          have you got every one of your family people to commit to voting, have you told them where to go, have you offered rides?

          most of all, have you fired people up for the existential gravity of this election?
          Man, I can feel the excitement crackling inside me, arcing like a jacob’s ladder
          the thrill of the contest descends upon us like a hot rain in the tropics!

          there can be rewards for our side too. plan your election party. pizza and beer or whatever you like.

          see what the Democrats have done well in terms of tactics and strategy and don’t underestimate the power of their persuasive methods and social organizing strategies

  3. Judge Barrett’s Church Comes Under Scrutiny

    Republicans Demanded It Be Off-Limits To Discussion

    Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the supreme court has prompted former members of her secretive faith group, the People of Praise, to come forward and share stories about emotional trauma and – in at least one case – sexual abuse they claim to have suffered at the hands of members of the Christian group.

    In the wake of the allegations, the Guardian has learned that the charismatic Christian organization, which is based in Indiana, has hired the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to conduct an “independent investigation” into sexual abuse claims on behalf of People of Praise.

    The historic sexual abuse allegations and claims of emotional trauma do not pertain specifically to Barrett, who has been a lifelong member of the charismatic group, or her family.

    But some former members who spoke to the Guardian said they were deeply concerned that too little was understood about the “community” of People of Praise ahead of Barrett’s expected confirmation by the Senate next week, after which she will hold the seat formerly held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Two people familiar with the matter say that more than two dozen former members of the faith group, many of whom say they felt “triggered” by Barrett’s nomination, are participating in a support group to discuss how the faith group affected their lives.

    Barrett was not asked about her involvement in People of Praise during her confirmation hearings last week, and has never included her involvement with the group in Senate disclosure forms, but has in the past emphasized that her religious faith as a devout Catholic would not interfere with her impartiality.

    People of Praise is rooted in the rise of charismatic Christian communities in the late 1960s and 1970s, which blended Pentecostal traditions like speaking in tongues and prophecy with Catholicism. It is an ecumenical group – meaning it accepts members of different Christian churches – though its members are mostly Catholic. Proponents say charismatic Christians are bound together by members’ shared personal presence of Christ, and “empowerment through the Holy Spirit”.

    Its handbook emphasizes an insular view of the world, stressing obedience and devotion to other members, and communal living.

    Barrett’s father has served as a leader in the community. Barrett was also listed as a “handmaid” in a 2010 directory, or female leader, served as a trustee at a school associated with the group, and has been featured in People of Praise magazines that were removed from the group’s website following her appointment as an appeals court judge in 2017.

    Edited from: “Revealed: Ex Members Of Amy Coney Barrett Faith Group Tell Of Trauma And Sex Absue”

    Today’s Guardian

    1. Judge ACB is being confirmed next week in time to decide the general election. At her signal, all hell will break loose.
      Fun times

      1. What signal would that be?

        Apply the law exactly as it is written. If it is found to be insufficient, then Congress shall enact new laws.

        The horror!

    2. weak and erroneous and misleading headline

      PoP is not a Church. Barrett is a Catholic. That is her Church.

      The PoP are a social group influenced by Christian religious belief and charismatic practices. I am not their apologist but I tire of misrepresentations in the media.

    3. If someone goes to a Catholic Church, and an allegation of sexual abuse is raised against the Catholic Church, does that mean that the congregation is guilty of sexual abuse?

      No.

      Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a Catholic. Not a cultist.

      People of Praise is a charity organization. It’s not a commune or a cult. “Community” refers to the Christian “community” or “fellowship” as well as the charitable goal of helping their fellow human beings in their “community”, as in neighborhood, state, or country. There are other “communities” – LGBT, feminism, activism, environmentalism, etc. It doesn’t suddenly become sinister if the community is Christian.

      “Handmaid” has no reference to The Handmaid’s Tale (published 1985) and predates the book. People of Praise were founded in 1971. The Handmaid’s Tale is fiction. A vicious little fantasy in which a Christian cult takes over the country, its women become barren, and young women become sex slaves.

      The Catholic Church does not believe that women should be sex slaves for the married women who attend Mass. People of Praise do not believe that women should be turned into sex slaves to provide barren women who volunteer in their charity with children.

      Do you guys understand the difference between fiction and reality? Because it does not sound like you do.

      It’s like clockwork. A Republican is nominated. Quick! Create a sexual assault claim or pretend they are a cultist if they are Christian!

    4. Don’t see any reason to connect this to Barrett, anymore than the better-established abuse scandals of the Catholic Church.

  4. Bizarre!

    Sanpete and Joe Friday are tag-teaming the Turley blog, having been reassigned by party headquarters as replacements for Needs-To-Be-Committed, who was detailed to a higher priority assignment.

    Wonder what that could be.

    Question is: Why are the communists* (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) so frantic; so apoplectic?

    Did their polling go south?
    _____________________

    * Joe and San, one cannot be half pregnant and one cannot be half communist. The entire communist American welfare state will never be licit or legitimate under the U.S. Constitution, but then, that’s what you intend to get rid of, isn’t it, the U.S. Constitution? Wouldn’t that make you the “enemy” then?

  5. The censorship of conservative views by Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and Instagram, and the shielding of Democrat politicians from allegations of wrongdoing, is election interference.

    This deliberately keeps Americans ignorant of counter arguments, other views, and important questions about Democrats.

    It’s Soviet Era Propaganda.

    If you don’t value your freedom or the blessing to be born in this country, you’ll throw it all away. In the ensuing dystopia, you’ll be told it was rich white men’s fault.

    1. Conservative views are not censored on Twitter or FB Karen. I just read plenty of them 2 hours ago. The owners’ goal are that incendiary rumors and lies are censored.

      Don’t you value your reputation here for posting? How many times can you warn us about Nazis at the door?

      1. Perhaps you should search for stories about the censorship of conservatives on social media. It appears you mistook reading a conservative thought on social media with the absence of censorship.

        This silencing of conservative speech was also remarked upon in this very blog post:

        “The question is whether Twitter and Facebook will now bar access to Schiff’s statements pending further review since the actual intelligence agencies are suggesting that this could be democratic disinformation. After all, a former Twitter executive is calling for President Trump to be barred from all social media until after the election to prevent “misinformation.””

  6. University of Berkley professor proposes censorship of every pro-Trump public figure. I wonder how long it will take to attack private individuals.

    Required reading – 1984
    Required viewing – The Purge

    In the name of tolerance and kindness, naive voters are ushering in an American version of Fascism. But it’s not Trump or Republicans, who believe in limited government and strong individual rights.

    It’s the Democrat Party the will be the next Fascists, Maoists, Leninists.

    Also required reading – learn about Trump’s accomplishments in office. You won’t hear about it on MSNBC. You’ll have to exert yourself and find them all on your own.

    What has Biden done for you in 47 years of office?

    1. Yeah Karen, watch out for the SS pounding on your door. There’s one of them under your bed right now!!

      Top of my head on Biden: Violence against women act, ’94 crime bill, voting against Bork, oversaw the 2009 stimulus and GM bail out which saved the upper mid-West, unsuccessfully argued against the Afghanistan surge by Obama, got rid of Shokin. Made some mistakes too, but he’s mostly admitted the big ones.

      1. Joe Friday:

        Supporters of Hitler mocked critics, warning of the abuses, too.

        History will not look upon these actions kindly.

        Oh, and that ’94 crime bill resulted in the mass incarceration of blacks. It was Trump’s First Step Act that tried to mitigate the improper effect on blacks.

        https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/joe-biden-crime-bill-and-americans-short-memory/597547/

        “In an earlier round this summer, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey wheeled on the former vice president, attacking his sponsorship of the 1994 federal crime bill with a roundhouse punch. “There are people right now in prison for life for drug offenses,” Booker said, “because you stood up and used that tough-on-crime phony rhetoric that got a lot of people elected but destroyed communities like mine.””

        In Biden’s defense, the 1994 crime bill was a joint effort with black community leaders to try to get crack cocaine out of their neighborhoods. The problem is that crack carried a higher sentence than cocaine did. This resulted in whites getting less prison time for the more expensive cocaine, than blacks did for crack, more common in their communities.

        I don’t actually blame the country for passing a tough crime bill, but it did have unintended consequences. Disproportionate sentencing for crack and cocaine was not fair.

        I don’t think “unsuccessfully argued” is an accomplishment.

        “Borking” is also not an accomplishment, as it is now held up as wrongdoing.

        I do agree with the Violence Against Women Act, which ended the protection of abusers who crossed state lines. I had forgotten he was a co-sponsor.

        But that’s it? That’s what you’ve got in 47 years? Borking, unsuccessfully arguing, sentencing blacks harsher then whites? You came up with one positive thing. In 47 years.

        1. “Supporters of Hitler mocked critics, warning of the abuses, too.”

          Oh my.

          As long as this kind of extremist hyperpartisanship on behalf of conservatism is accepted by conservatives here, the conservative message will remain self-undermining.

      2. Top of my head on Biden . . .”

        . . . Is a serial plagiarist who lies about his resume and who pilfers other people’s bios.

    2. This, sadly, is the kind of thought Turley and other conservative media encourages. The other side are Fascists, Maoists, Leninists. Turley just compared his domestic targets to the Chinese government yesterday.

      This country is greatly weakened by hyperpartisanship.

      1. “This country is greatly weakened by hyperpartisanship.”

        Sanpete, you remind me of the woman in the psychiatric hospital that calls the doctors and nurses Crazy. I think we should call ahead for a rubber room to put you in.

        1. And more randomness from you. If you’re trying to imply I’m the hyperpartisan, please show it. Should be easy, as hyperpartisanship is easy to see and establish. Or you can admit to yourself that you’ve stumbled again.

          And if you disagree with anything I said, you might want to give a reason, a real one.

          1. No randomness at all you are hyper partisan and it has been demonstrated over and over again. It is clear to any reasonable observer though to one as hyper partisan as you it wouldn’t be clear. My most recent entry on the email found in hunters laptop is an example of how your hyper partisanship affects your reasoning.

            1. Pure empty hand waving, again. How your post could be an example of my hyperpartisanship is a mystery, but I suspect you mean to say that because I disagree with your (plainly wrong) claim about the emails I’m a hyperpartisan. Not how it works.

              1. You can bring the horse to water but you can’t make them drink.

                You used the term hyper partisanship more than a half a dozen times as a weapon before I responded to the subject. That alone shows how hyper partisan you are. Instead of dealing with the facts on the table virtually every post included hyper partisan, hyper partisan and hyper partisan.

                1. Not even close to showing hyperpartisanship. I use the word often with you because you’re a flaming hyperpartisan (though hardly the most flamboyant here), and you need to be aware of that and how it distorts and poisons your political views.

                  I do try deal with any facts you raise that are relevant to the point at hand. If I miss something, do point it out. (Mere assertion that you feel strongly about but can’t support doesn’t count as fact.)

                  1. “Not even close to showing hyperpartisanship. I use the word often with you because you’re a flaming hyperpartisan ”

                    What you forget is that you call everyone you fight with hyper partisan (or another name). I wasn’t involved with that word and was just watching your use of it against Kurtz. Same with John Say but perhaps you used different terms. Your modus operandi is to attack the opposition with words and word games, not facts or opinions.

                    “I do try deal with any facts you raise that are relevant to the point at hand. If I miss something, do point it out. ”

                    You are quite disingenuous.

                    1. You continue to make my points. Hyperpartisans have great trouble seeing those they disagree with as anything but dishonest, but then when pressed about how they’re dishonest, it’s just for saying things the hyperpartisan disagrees with. And the irony!

                      Kurtz and Say are even worse hyperpartisans than you, so it’s perfectly reasonable to point it out.

                    2. “Kurtz and Say are even worse hyperpartisans than you, so it’s perfectly reasonable to point it out.”

                      You make my point. To you anyone with significant disagreement using facts and logic to oppose your wordplay is a hyper partisan.

                      Why don’t you start using facts and logic? Do they inhibit your ability to wordplay?

                    3. And yet more of your reflexive response of simply claiming every criticism applies instead to the one who makes it. It’s like going back to elementary school.

                      To return to my original point, those who see the other side in US politics as Fascists, Maoists, or Leninists, or compare them to the Chinese government, are engaging in hyperpartisanship. That and its acceptance indeed greatly weakens the nation. Unless you have some rational response, I’ll leave it at that.

                    4. “And yet more of your reflexive response of simply claiming every criticism applies instead to the one who makes it. It’s like going back to elementary school.”

                      You said that before and I have already proven that you must be talking about yourself. Anyone can read how you have acted throughout this debate, “hyper partisan, and attributing hate to an individual without proof. I have been quite kind in my responses to you and provided facts and logic. You complain, provide excuses and flame calling others haters when that is not true.

                      When one acts to repress freedom of speech, do illegal searches, lock people up without cause , spy on citizens etc. one is not acting in the American way. They are acting in the fashion of a Stalin. If one doesn’t like being related to a Stalin they should stop doing abhorrent things.

  7. Jonathan: Fifty percent of Trump’s supporters actually believe the QAnon conspiracy that Trum is secretly fighting a child sex traffic ring run by Democratic elites. This appears to be the audience you are addressing when you keep promoting the Giuliani “dossier”. You bizarrely claim that Adam Schiff and 50 former high ranking intel officials are part of some “democratic disinformation” campaign in debunking the “dossier”. You go on to claim the “emails magnify concerns that Hunter Biden was involved in a pay-to-play scheme”. No problem in making an unwarranted assumption–even though neither US intel nor the FBI have finished their investigation. I think that when all is said and done the Guiliani “dossier” will implode under the wait of its internal contradictions.

    But by continuing to beat this dead horse you may unwittingly be helping the Biden campaign. While you are promoting the Giulaini conspiracy 30 million voters have already cast their ballots. They don’t care about Hunter Biden’s alleged computer or its contents. And meanwhile Biden is talking to voters about their real concerns, e.g., Covid, jobs, healthcare and climate change. So keep it up but be careful of what you wish for!

    1. “Fifty percent of Trump’s supporters actually believe the QAnon conspiracy that Trum is secretly fighting a child sex traffic ring run by Democratic elites.”

      Source on that 50% figure?

        1. Thanks. That’s only if the name Q-Anon is left out of the question, but still … The power of hyperpartisanship over the mind is truly scary sometimes.

    2. Fifty percent of Trump’s supporters actually believe the QAnon conspiracy

      About 90% of Trump’s supporters will give you a blank look if you start asking them about any QAnon conspiracy.

      1. Maybe, but count the president as one of them. unless his retweeting of Q Anon conspiracies is merely a cynical attempt to spread them based on his assessment of the intelligence of his supporters.

  8. The American College of Physicians today alerted its members that we are all racists and they are atoning for their / our sins.
    Our new normal in medicine: death by a thousand virtue signals.

    ACP Commits to being Anti-Racist, Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive Organization
    American College of Physicians

    Dear ,

    Today, the American College of Physicians (ACP) has issued a formal commitment to being an anti-racist, diverse, equitable and inclusive organization dedicated to policy, advocacy and action to confront and eliminate racism, racial disparities, discrimination, bias and inequities in health and health care and within our own organization.

    It outlines a series of existing ACP policies, ongoing efforts, current actions and future plans that reflect and demonstrate the College’s commitments to: ensuring the diversity, equity and inclusion of ACP members, governance and employees; being an anti-racist organization; combatting racial disparities that affect health and health care; and promoting gender equity and eliminating the inequities in compensation and career advancement that physicians can face.

    In the statement, ACP acknowledges and expresses regret for its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission. The College pledges its commitment to transformational change, and to a sustained effort and an active process that reflect the importance of transparency and accountability as we move forward.

    Join us in pledging to work together to end racism, bias, discrimination, harassment and inequity in our society, in our profession, in our communities, and within ourselves.

    Heather E. Gantzer, MD, MACP, Chair, Board of Regents

    Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, President

    Gregory C. Kane, MD, MACP, Treasurer

    William E. Fox, MD, FACP, Chair, Board of Governors

    Darilyn V. Moyer, MD, FACP, Executive Vice President/Chief Executive Officer

    Thomas G. Cooney, MD, MACP, Chair-elect, Board of Regents

    George Abraham, MD, FACP, President-elect

    Rebecca A. Andrews, MD, FACP, Chair-elect, Board of Governors

    This message was sent to

    You are receiving this message due to your affiliation with the American College of Physicians. ACP respects your privacy and will not sell, lease, or share your e-mail address with any other organization. The College will only use e-mail for the purpose of conducting College business. This and all communications from ACP adhere to our privacy policy.

    American College of Physicians
    190 N. Independence Mall West
    Philadelphia, PA 19106-1572

    © 2020 American College of Physicians. All rights reserved.

    1. Ha, you run when no one pursues. It doesn’t say anything about you being a racist, yet that’s what you see.

      “death by a thousand virtue signals”

      I remember when conservatives were in favor of virtue, including in their leaders. Trump has made that no longer tenable, so there’s been a switch to complaining about support for virtue instead. A transformational leader indeed.

      1. Bullocks. That is the same old song but sung a whole lot worse. I can’t believe that you would put out such rubbish! This doctor’s group may be why the state of healthcare is in such a disgrace! The problem with healthcare is not the insurance! The trouble with healthcare is doctors who are not doctors but Social Therapist! And a whole lot of other things like letting the Insurance Companies tell them how to practice medicine!

        1. The trouble with healthcare is doctors who are not doctors but Social Therapist!

          I’m involved in medical education. I made a casual remark to a friend, a CEO of a biotech company, how the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) has 4 sections, 2 of which are science based. The other 2 are political: racism, health disparities, social justice themes, etc. My friend’s quip made me laugh: “I’m surprised they even have questions on science!” In a couple of decades, physicians will be so poorly trained that Americans will be far sicker from chronic conditions and substandard medical care. but they’ll get awesome SJW points!

          Here are a few sample questions from an actual MCAT practice test.

          Research findings indicate higher levels of patient trust and physician attention in race-concordant physician–patient relationships because:

          • A.both the physician and patient belong to the same in-group.
          • B.the physician and patient share similar levels of status.
          • C.of racial hostility present in race-discordant relationships.
          • D.of the lack of role strain experienced by the physician.

          Solution: The correct answer is A.

          This Sociology question is classified with the content category “Social interactions.” The correct answer is A. Members of in-groups share common backgrounds and similar identities, which generally result in high levels of trust among in-group members. Racial/ethnic identity can be an important characteristic of an in-group, resting in a shared culture, language, or community. Because the question asks you to consider and evaluate different explanations of a finding related to the passage, it is a Scientific Reasoning and Problem Solving question.
          ===

          Which effect is LEAST likely to occur with the process of gentrification?

          • A.Development of affordable housing
          • B.Increased neighborhood stratification
          • C.Displacement of lower-income residents
          • D.Expanded tax base for local government

          Solution: The correct answer is A.

          This is a Sociology question that falls under the content category “Demographic characteristics and processes.” The answer to this question is A, development of affordable housing. Gentrification is the reinvestment in lower income neighborhoods in urban areas, which results from the influx of more affluent groups. With the arrival of more affluent residents, housing demand increases and generally results in a decrease of affordable housing for lower income residents. In contrast, the other response options present more likely outcomes of gentrification. Because it requires you to make a prediction about demographic change based on a sociological concept, it is a Scientific Reasoning and Problem Solving question.

          ====

          A researcher wants to gain insight into how a social movement organization presents its beliefs to the general public in an effort to attract new members. Which methodological approach would be most appropriate for this study?

          • A.Observing meetings about the organization’s marketing budget
          • B.Conducting a content analysis of the organization’s website
          • C.Surveying organization members about their beliefs
          • D.Randomly sampling the general population about social movement organizations

          Solution: The correct answer is B.

          This Sociology question is covered by content in the category “Demographic characteristics and processes.” The answer to this question is B because conducting content analysis of online information would provide data on how the social movement organization frames issues to the broader public. Content analysis is a sociological method that is used to make inferences about communication. As applied to studying a website, content analysis could help determine which beliefs the organization publically emphasizes. In contrast, the methods in the other response options would not specifically generate data about the public presentation of beliefs. The question asks you to evaluate different methodological approaches for accomplishing a research objective, making it a Reasoning about the Design and Execution of Research question.

          ===

          An immigrant teen stops participating in the ethnic customs of his family and instead identifies with the dominant culture of the new country by dressing, speaking, and acting like teens from that culture. In this scenario, the teens of the new country’s dominant culture become which type of group for the teen?

          • A.Assimilated group
          • B.Reference group
          • C.Majority group
          • D.Peer group

          Solution: The correct answer is B.

          This is a Sociology question that falls under the content category “Self-identity.” The answer to this question is B, reference group. Individuals often emulate the attitudes and behaviors of groups that they admire and would like to join. Sociologists refer to these as reference groups, which are important for self-evaluation and identity formation. The scenario in the question suggests that the teen constructs an identity, through modifying his behaviors (dressing, speaking, acting), to match that of teens from the dominant culture of his new country. Because the question requires you to apply a concept to explain a hypothetical scenario, it is a Scientific Reasoning and Problem Solving question.

          ===

          Because cultural liaisons work closely with physicians and are advocates for patients, which phenomenon are cultural liaisons most likely to experience?

          • A.Network redundancy because of the amount of people with whom they come into contact
          • B.Homogeneity because they will see the same patients over and over
          • C.Role strain because of their collegiality with physicians and their responsibility to patients
          • D.Role conflict because of their status as a non-medical professional in a clinic setting

          Solution: The correct answer is C.

          This Sociology question is covered by content in the “Social interactions” category. The correct answer is C. Role strain is the tension that results from competing demands within the context of a single role. As applied to the question, the tension that the cultural liaison experiences is between different responsibilities within the same occupational role. If the tension existed between different roles that a single individual held, then it would be considered role conflict. It is a Knowledge of Scientific Concepts and Principles question because it requires you to identify the concept that describes an experience relevant to a group from the passage.

          1. Scary. If the test is multiple choice a-d with 100 questions and the person taking the exam is an expert SJW then he could get 50 points from the sociological side and 12.5 points from random picks. That means he starts with 62.5. If 65 is passing, statistically all he has to know is two or three answers out of 50 on the science end.

            People forget that at least around the times of the Vietnam War to get into medical school from a good university the applicant had to score near a 4.0 (out of 4) to be granted admission. The courses required were heavy into the hard sciences. Sounds like the children might have to go abroad for complex medical care in the future. 🙂

            1. Nonsense. You have to know the research findings and terminology to answer those correctly. Being involved with fighting for social justice won’t help much if at all.

              (SJW is of course a pejorative term, and its use is a sign of hyperpartisanship, which by its nature suffers from lack of respect for other views.)

              1. Did you not note that I said an *expert* SJW. I was making a point. Unfortunately, as is most common in your replies instead of dealing with a serious issue you played word games. You can use whatever term you want for SJW and put the word expert in front of it instead of destroying the ability to have a discussion and then complain about how all the discussions turn.

                My discussion was serious and geared to the appropriate training of physicians that is necessary for Democrats and Republicans equally.

                Do you now see my point? Do you still think my point is nonsense? Let me know your answer along with an explanation.

                I want a doctor that is trained in the sciences particularly those that involve the practice of medicine. I want them to focus on my medical problems not focus on whether I have a gun in the house or whether or not I wear a helmet when I ride a bike.

                1. You’d have to explain what you mean by expert in this context, as being well versed in fighting for or promoting social justice isn’t the same as studying sociology.

                  I don’t see why a Republican who has studied the material should have any more trouble than a Democrat who has done the same.

                  Doctors should be trained in whatever ways will make their practice most effective. That includes knowing how to deal with patients and any issues they might have that might affect their health.

                  1. “You’d have to explain what you mean by expert in this context”

                    Again you are being disingenuous and playing word games. I emphasized the word expert in the context of having expert ability to answer the non science test questions as mentioned by Estovir. Since you didn’t like the abbreviation SJW I told you to fill in your preferable term. Of course you weren’t bothering with the issue at hand, physician competence, rather as usual you were taking a side road to debate something completely different.

                    I was talking about physicians not Republicans or Democrats that you brought into the discussion to avoid discussing the topic which to me was rather neutral.

                    At the end you say “Doctors should be trained in whatever ways” again filling your answer with generalities and words not adding a single relevant fact or displaying any sense of logic.

                  2. I will repeat the statement I made that you didn’t bother to answer. Let’s see if you can justify what Estovir was talking about or if you too are scared at that approach in the training of physicians.

                    “Scary. If the test is multiple choice a-d with 100 questions and the person taking the exam is an expert professor (**** Sanpete can insert her word for SJW****) then he could get 50 points from the sociological side and 12.5 points from random picks. That means he starts with 62.5. If 65 is passing, statistically all he has to know is two or three answers out of 50 on the science end.

                    1. You’re very confused.

                      Those are science questions.

                      I did in plain fact directly address your point about physician competence.

                      You brought Republicans and Dems into it.

                      I directly addressed the part of your earlier comment that you quoted. Your failure to adequately respond to what I said isn’t the same as me not saying it.

                    2. “I did in plain fact directly address your point about physician competence.”

                      No you didn’t Sandpete. You provided a non-answer. Your first response changed the subject.

                      Your second response did the same and added a non-responsive answer to the question which was: “Doctors should be trained in whatever ways will make their practice most effective.” Unfortunately the question was whether the 50:50 distribution or any significant distribution of learning should be outside of the knowledge a physician needs to treat illness. You didn’t bother answering the question. Instead you engaged in word play. You couldn’t take a position.

                      “You brought Republicans and Dems into it.”

                      Not really. I used the term SJW which you objected to and I told you to insert whatever word you wished to accomplished my attempt to provide an expert taking such a test. To make it clear that this was non-political (but for the fact that even medical education has become political) I said: “I was talking about physicians not Republicans or Democrats that you brought into the discussion to avoid discussing the topic which to me was rather neutral. Again you used wordplay to shift the discussion to a different topic. You can’t seem to get away from partisanship even in a topic that should be neutral.

                      “Your failure to adequately respond to what I said isn’t the same as me not saying it.

                      Above I discussed the entire discussion to date including the pertinent quotes. It is obvious that you didn’t respond to the question at hand and that at ever juncture you tried to avoid dealing in facts. Your sole goal was to spin and not take a position for which you could be criticized for.

                      I’ll repeat the question. Some people have been pushing physicians to substitute science with sociology per Estovir’s first sentence “The trouble with healthcare is doctors who are not doctors but Social Therapist!” He provided an example of what is being taught today that was not taught in years past. Do you think that this newer focus on sociology instead of science helps the physician treat patients or harms that endeavor. Take note that physician training is arduous and loaded up with a lot of material so that adding something new means something old needs to be discarded.

                    3. Hopeless.

                      As I very plainly said before, doctors should be trained in whatever ways will make their practice most effective. That includes knowing how to deal with patients and any issues they might have that might affect their health. Yes, that includes the matters raised in the questions above, as research has shown they matter.

                    4. I love how you are unable or unwilling to answer even the simplest of questions. It sounds like you are scared to death to say something that would upset a SJW. You might be excommunicated from the church of leftism.

                    5. You have my answer in plain terms, for the second time. That you prefer to ignore its plain meaning for your question is entirely your choice.

                    6. “I did in plain fact directly address your point about physician competence.”

                      No you didn’t Sandpete. You provided a non-answer. Your first response changed the subject.

                      Your second response did the same and added a non-responsive answer to the question which was: “Doctors should be trained in whatever ways will make their practice most effective.” Unfortunately the question was whether the 50:50 distribution or any significant distribution of learning should be outside of the knowledge a physician needs to treat illness. You didn’t bother answering the question. Instead you engaged in word play. You couldn’t take a position.

                      “You brought Republicans and Dems into it.”

                      Not really. I used the term SJW which you objected to and I told you to insert whatever word you wished to accomplished my attempt to provide an expert taking such a test. To make it clear that this was non-political (but for the fact that even medical education has become political) I said: “I was talking about physicians not Republicans or Democrats that you brought into the discussion to avoid discussing the topic which to me was rather neutral. Again you used wordplay to shift the discussion to a different topic. You can’t seem to get away from partisanship even in a topic that should be neutral.

                      “Your failure to adequately respond to what I said isn’t the same as me not saying it.

                      Above I discussed the entire discussion to date including the pertinent quotes. It is obvious that you didn’t respond to the question at hand and that at ever juncture you tried to avoid dealing in facts. Your sole goal was to spin and not take a position for which you could be criticized for.

                      I’ll repeat the question. Some people have been pushing physicians to substitute science with sociology per Estovir’s first sentence “The trouble with healthcare is doctors who are not doctors but Social Therapist!” He provided an example of what is being taught today that was not taught in years past. Do you think that this newer focus on sociology instead of science helps the physician treat patients or harms that endeavor. Take note that physician training is arduous and loaded up with a lot of material so that adding something new means something old needs to be discarded.

                    7. Impressive feat of willful incomprehension, yet again. Took days to get you to figure out what the email actually said, or didn’t say, a very simple point. I’m not going to invest that much in each point just to overcome your defense mechanisms. You’ll have to learn to figure these things out on your own.

      2. The virtue in play now is survival. Existence is its own justification, and those who survive, exist

        the days when “conservatives” enjoyed being noble failures are done, over, kaput

        there’s a low intensity conflict going on now in our society, not just the summer insurgency from BLM ANTIFA, but an attempt for a total takeover of the country by global plutocrats and their lackeys in the entrenched bureaucracies. they are trying to go for the brass ring in this election, and then kill off the electoral college and various other remaining impediments to their power.

        that low intensity conflict has creeped into various social institutions which are on fire with conflict. Such as universities.

        Or social media.

        There is open “INFORMATION WARFARE” being waged by the global plutocracy and all their controlled global corporations, against the American citizens

        Strangely, it parallels and increasingly warm low intensity conflict with China. And we know which side likes China in this election, cough cough, Joe Biden

        However I am a student of Chinese things and people. I feel there is a lot of cunning insight to be gained from the Chinese Civil War, and from the 70 years history of the PRC.

        Often the lessons are not what they might seem to be.

        I will zero in one one thing that’s worth a look. A book of strategy from a couple decades ago, two PLA Colonels wrote it. It so well describes the many theatres and venues of “war” today– that it is a critically important aid to understanding the unfolding conflict in the American 2020 election. The guys who wrote this saw the patterns well and every hour you spend reading their work will pay you back in spades. I highly recommend it.

        https://www.c4i.org/unrestricted.pdf

        1. since nobody had a comment on this excellent strategy manual from the Chicom PLA, I will use wiki’s entries to elaborate and thus show how relevant this is to what is going on striclty among Americans now in our incipient conflict amongst ourselves

          “Alternative methods of attack
          Reducing one’s opponent, the book notes, can be accomplished in a number of ways other than direct military confrontation. The book notes that these alternative methods “have the same and even greater destructive force than military warfare, and they have already produced serious threats different from the past and in many directions for…national security.”

          Lawfare
          Lawfare, or political action through transnational or non-governmental organizations can effect a policy change that would be impossible otherwise. Because of the international nature of the modern world and activism, it is much easier for nation-states to affect policy in other nation-states through a proxy.

          Economic warfare
          Owing to the interconnected nature of global economics, nations can inflict grievous harm on the economies of other nations without taking any offensive action.

          Network warfare
          see iWar
          One of the better-known alternatives in this book is the idea of attacking networks. Networks are increasingly important in not only data exchange but also transportation, financial institutions, and communication. Attacks that disable networks can easily hamstring large areas of life that are dependent on them for coordination. One example of network warfare would be shutting down a network that supplies power. If there is a significant failure in the power grid caused by the attack, massive power outages could result, crippling industry, defense, medicine, and all other areas of life.

          Terrorism
          Another instance of threats to nations within the scope of the concept of “unrestricted warfare” is terrorism. Terrorism is used by a group to gain satisfaction for certain demands. Even if these demands are not satisfied, a terrorist attack can have vastly disproportionate effects on national welfare. One only has to look at the economic crisis that followed the terrorist attacks against the United States, or the extensive security measures put in place after those same attacks. Terrorism erodes a nation’s sense of security and well being, even if the direct effects of the attacks only concern a minute percentage of the population.

          Defense against unrestricted warfare
          The authors note that an old-fashioned mentality that considers military action the only offensive action is inadequate given the new range of threats. Instead, the authors advocate forming a “composite force in all aspects related to national interest. Moreover, given this type of composite force, it is also necessary to have this type of composite force to become the means which can be utilized for actual operations. This should be a “grand warfare method” which combines all of the dimensions and methods in the two major areas of military and non-military affairs so as to carry out warfare. This is opposite of the formula for warfare methods brought forth in past wars.”

          Implications
          As the authors state, the new range of options combined with the rising cost (both political and financial) of waging traditional warfare results in the rising dominance of the new alternatives to traditional military action. A state that does not heed these warnings is in dire shape.[5]”

          SOUNDS LIKE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN STUDYING THIS EXCELLENT MANUAL FOR NEFARIOUS IDEAS.

          WILL REPUBLICANS GET THE MESSAGE? ONLY ONE I HEARD MENTION THIS CUNNING BOOK WAS BANNON

    2. It’s funny how in a smallish city in the midwest BLM got a doctor locked up because they blocked the roadway and he dared to inch forward slowly as they mobbed his car, which caused the local police to arrest him for some misdemeanor, thereby possibly saving him from the mob

      in spite of him being a good doctor and member of the community, BLM told the reporters he was a racist and the papers dutifully repeated the lie

      this scared the devil out of other doctors who heard of it. see, there’s still a lot of white male doctors out there, and they’re not happy to be painted with a broad brush

      the overall effect, of course, is to make more Trump voters out of them. Good work, BLM

      as if all the ACA paperwork & administrivia had not done so already

  9. In answers to additional Senate questioins, Amy Coney Barrett declines to:
    -say whether it’s a crime to vote twice
    -say whether Article II allows Trump to “do whatever I want”

    This is a raw display of contempt for the Senate process.

    I wonder whether she’d say that it’s a crime to commit murder.

    It’s not abstract or controversial to say each voter may cast no more than one vote in each election. It’s so uncontroversial that the court has used “one person, one vote” to describe the principle underlying its more abstracted equal protection and apportionment jurisprudence.

    1. Senator Hirono Demands ACB Be Weighed Against A Duck To See If She Is A Witch
      https://babylonbee.com/news/senator-hirono-demands-acb-be-weighed-against-a-duck-to-see-if-she-is-a-witch

      WASHINGTON, D.C.—After two days of Amy Coney Barrett gracefully and stoically answering questions with perfect recall and no notes, suspicions grew on Capitol Hill that she might be a practitioner of the dark arts.

      “Oh, she’s a witch alright, just look at her!” said Senator Hirono. “Just look at the way she’s dressed and how she’s so much prettier and smarter than us! She’s in league with Beelzebub himself, I just know it! We must burn her!”

      Senator Hirono then pulled a live duck out of a massive burlap sack next to her and announced: “In addition to being a Senator, I am also quite wise in the ways of science. Everyone knows witches burn because they are made of wood. I think I read that somewhere. Wood floats, and so do ducks– so logically, if Amy Coney Barrett weighs as much as this duck I found in the reflection pool outside, she is a witch and must be burned.”

      The Democrat senators nodded in solemn approval while the Republicans yelled and pounded on their desks a bunch before pouncing and booking interviews with Tucker Carlson.

      Congressional aides brought in the bathroom scale from Jerry Nadler’s office in order to weigh ACB against the duck. Fortunately, disaster was averted when Mitch McConnell entered the room and put a stop to the proceedings.

      1. Many of the comments here read as though they could be from the Bee. Hard to tell which are real and which are parody intended to make conservatives look loony.

      2. Facebook contends the Bee’s Monty Python joke is an ‘incitement to violence’ and has demonetized their account.

    2. Anonymous is trying to take things out of context. I had to deal with that stupidity earlier regarding Tucker Carlson and present what the judge actually said. If showed Anonymous to be the stupid person he is and now he wants to show that he is smarter than Amy Bartlett. One can only laugh at that.

  10. REGARDING BELOW:

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

  11. McConnell nixes covid relief bill that Pelosi and Mnuchin are almost in agreement on because unimportant stuff like people being evicted and dying is less important than getting a religious fanatic on the SC.

    “Above all, Republicans fretted that a vote on such a package could interfere with their hasty timetable for confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court by early next week. Mr. McConnell said he told the White House he was particularly concerned that a deal before then could inject unwanted unpredictability into the schedule, according to the four Republicans.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/us/politics/stimulus-deal-mitch-mcconnell-nancy-pelosi.html

    1. He knows what his priorities are, but that’s not what’s best for the average American, and I hope it helps flip the Senate.

    1. yeah phil mckraken’s voting for biden cuz he’s a flag officer so gunning for those deep state promotions

      dont count those votes from ST6 just yet

  12. “If Comey had indicted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama.”

    – Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review (paraphrased)
    ___________________________________________

    “If Wray had indicted Hunter Biden, Wray would have convicted Joe.”

    – Anonymous (paraphrased)
    ______________________

    No Deep Deep State actor gets indicted. Period.

    Christopher Wray is a dutiful soldier of the Deep Deep State.

    1. If you don’t agree with George, you’re a communist or a soldier of the Deep State. That’s the world according to George. It’s an extreme version of the my way or the highway world view.

  13. Voters were not made aware of the investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016 until after the election. The Steele Dossier was not made public until Jan 2017. Now the beneficiary of that discretion by both the FBI – not extended to Hillary by the way, and that cost her the presidency according to statistical analysis by 538 – and news sources demand that suspicious and salacious material – which by the way proves nothing about Joe Biden – be reported and promoted, or, we have become Nazi Germany, 1984, China, Blade Runner America, you name it. They are spoiled by having elections handed to them and think they deserve another.

  14. Another irresponsible and intellectually dishonest blog entry.

    Point out specifically which Schiff statements would be blocked for the reason suggested here. Good luck!

    (Hint: Schiff never said what Turley has repeatedly implied he has. There’s no excuse for Turley not checking that before his repeated attacks.)

    “Just a day after more than 50 former senior intelligence officials signed on to a letter declaring that the recent disclosure of emails from the Hunter Biden laptop is likely Russian disinformation”

    And that’s not what the letter says. The letter says:

    “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal aSorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.

    “If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.”

    To my knowledge, no intelligence service has concluded this concern to be misplaced. The line of disinformation being pushed in connection with the laptop and its contents, that Joe Biden is complicit in influence peddling, is Russian in origin, at the least, and Giuliani has acknowledged working with someone believed to be a Russian operative in connection with it.

    1. Based on how Sanpete evaluated the email involving Joe Biden’s meeting with the Burisma executive why would anyone want to listen to her complaints about what Turley wrote?

      1. My tail has shown up to wag again! Still sore about his inability to rationally respond to my pointing out his hyperpartisan misreading of the supposed “smoking gun” email.

        Do share if you develop a rational response to what I’ve said here. Your continual lashing out doesn’t advance anything.

        1. “My tail has shown up to wag again!”

          Sanpete, I am very happy for you. I really don’t want to deal with the familiar accusations above that you have been touting over and over again. I have dealt with them many times and each time you had to regrow a tail.

          1. Yes, each time I post you show up again to wag and wave your hands insubstantially.

            My invitation for you to give actual reasons against what I’ve said here stands. Otherwise you might consider your inability to do so as a clue, and develop some self knowledge.

            1. Sanpete, when you start providing facts and logic I might accept such an invitation. Unfortunately, at the present you have nothing to say so your method of discussion is blame the lack of data on the other person.

              Do as you will. You have no credibility and apparently no particular knowledge.

              1. More hilariously brazen unintended irony! Hyperpartisanship is blinding, but when ego also gets in the way, it’s doubly so.

                The facts and logic are very plainly there above for all to see, your pretense otherwise notwithstanding. Your rational response is what’s missing. Excuses won’t lead you to self-knowledge.

                1. Sanpete, your ego is often in the way.

                  We had the facts and you wanted to fictionalize the story. That is on you. The facts were secure enough to warrant investigations and all the questions involved instead of pretending that the email was meaningless until proven to your satisfaction. We have seen that type of attitude on the blog before and it is not helpful in reasonable debate or in running a country. Trying to blame others for your failures isn’t something pretty to look at.

                  1. Your posts are the most ironic I’ve seen for a good while. Might be due to an unthinking tendency to use the schoolyard tactic of just saying back to others whatever they say to you, regardless of how little sense it makes to do that.

                    No matter. I’ve made my points as clear as possible. Can’t make you see what you prefer not to.

                    1. The problem is what I said was exactly what I said it was. You are a hyper partisan and you let your ego get in the way of any serious discussion. This is not a school yard taunt. This is the truth that is verified almost anytime you open your mouth.

                      “No matter. I’ve made my points as clear as possible.”

                      Quite the contrary you have attempted to confuse the issues at hand and make them less clear than they are. You play word games and spin. You are doing that right now.

                    2. You have a pronounced tendency to confuse what you have strong feelings about but are unable to support rationally with truth. Not the same. Just a tip for your edification.

                    3. Quite the contrary. From almost the start you provided no fact or logic. Your game is spinning words.

                      You were wrong about the email and I told you why with fact, quotes and logic. Your response was word spin. You had a position and that position remained fixed even after new data came in further proving that Joe Biden met with a Burisma official. Now I think there is evidence he met with more than one and other people as well. But you will hang onto your word spin. At least we ended you love affair with the phrase hyper partisan.

                    4. Allan, you’ve already established that you view reasons you have no rational response to as mere word spinning, a handy defense mechanism.

                      For example, and to humor your fixation on the email argument, you never explained (that I saw) why the email couldn’t refer to a meeting supposed to occur later that morning. Instead you called what I said mere moving words around, complained about mere possibilities, etc, as though the idea were sophistic or outlandish. It’s just a sensible possible meaning of the email, perfectly consistent with all it says and with everyday life.

                      A simple point that you can’t answer rationally underlies so much overreaction.

                    5. I explained what the most rational understanding of the letter would be that was also extremely likely to be correct and made even more likely by associated circumstances. Then I believe I stated what should be done with the information at that time. Since then my opinion has been bolstered by more information.

                      You spun you words to make the letter appear that the meeting had not taken place. That is fine if you wish to believe it, but the statement itself was credible enough to warrant an investigation and mention by the news media.

                      Skip your wordplay and deal with the reality of the document.: “the statement itself WAS CREDIBLE ENOUGH to warrant an investigation and mention by the news media.”

                    6. You again baselessly claim it’s extremely likely the meeting referred to had already happened and again claim it’s word spinning to point out the other clear possible meaning. Again, your strong feelings aren’t evidence.

                      My point has never been that it’s not worth investigating. Obviously it is. My point was and remains that the email doesn’t clearly say what you and others have repeatedly claimed it does. It doesn’t clearly imply any meeting actually happened. That matters.

                    7. “You again baselessly claim it’s extremely likely the meeting referred to had already happened”

                      More word spin, but at least you are moving forward and agreeing with it being worth investigating. That indeed is a step forward. The difference was how much credibility one gave to the email indicating Joe Biden was involved. The only reason to investigate is if the evidence was good enough to pursue an investigation. Opinions as to how much one believed in the meeting wasn’t important if both parties agreed there was enough evidence for an investigation.

                      Instead of dealing with facts and logic you stood firm in arguing the negative for if the negative existed there would be no investigation. You are being someone dishonest in the way you have characterized the discussion but no need to pursue as you now stopped word playing and have agreed that the investigation is warranted.

                    8. Bizarre. You’ve been having a conversation with voices in your head if you think I ever suggested it shouldn’t be investigated. The point of what I’ve said was and is simple and plain.

                      The unintended irony in your remarks remains at the highest level I’ve seen for a long time. It indicates you’re unlikely to ever gain the self-knowledge needed to overcome your hyperpartisanship.

                    9. If you didn’t think it should be investigated why were you fighting for the negative argument. Are you that petty? You just want to argue? There was no point to the argument if everyone agreed more or less that the letter was strong enough to warrant an investigation.

                      One of the reasons you don’t like to say much of anything is so you can hold onto any opinion you want in the future. In that way you are like a reptile that changes colors.

                      I should remind you that once again you are engaging in insult. That is fine with me but you complained about hyper partisanship and insults but it seems that to know what you believe is to listen to what you accuse others of being.

                  2. Incredible. Are you really unable to see why it matters whether the email actually says there was a meeting? I’m not going to spend several more days trying to get you to understand that simple point too.

                    The irony never ends. It won’t end until you get self-knowledge.

                    1. You argued in the negative because others were calling for an investigation surrounding the email. In your discussion you even forgot about the third part of the email being so intent on proving the email meant nothing. You screwed up.

                      Finally you agree it is reason for investigation. What a mixed up person you are.

                    2. The only true sentence in what you said is the next to last, though it’s misleadingly stated as though I ever disagreed that it should be investigated.

                      I’ve made my points, you’ve understood them as well as you can in your present state of mind. More discussion won’t help.

                    3. Sanpete, anyone who has been reading you knows that you are not to be trusted. You screwed up. That is obvious.

    2. The letter starts out with it’s own disclaimer. We think it’ like this but we have no concrete evidence. We think it’s like that but we have no real proof. What was the purpose of writting the letter at all if evidence and proof are not therein contained. The natural question by an inquiring mind would be to the motivation of the presenters of an hypothesis presented with the caveat of “this may have happened”. Perhaps one might find a political motivation cloaked within their conveyance.

      1. The letter is signed by experts who served presidents across the political spectrum, and it does cite evidence. One should address that before dismissing the it.

        1. It is still saying that this “might have happened”. When did the meaning of “this might have happened” change. Why not 75 people said. Why not 1000 people said. If 1000 people said “this might have happened” it still doesn’t mean that it happened.
          Let me offer a scenario. Let’s put together a letter and send it to our most reliable 50 for their signature. The intelligence community has been thoroughly embarrassed over the last year. Do you think it would be hard to find 50 signatories from agencies that have lost so much creditability.
          Substance to counter arguments please.

          1. Again, one should address the reasons the letter actually cites before dismissing it. You’re taking part of what it says out of context. Perhaps one might find a political motivation cloaked within that.

        2. You won’t find Ray McGovern’s name on it .. RAY says it is bogus. And politically motivated, lead by the “culprits” Brennan and Clapper and “discredited” Hayden (and brennan and clapper)

          https://twitter.com/raymcgovern/status/1318725084643807232?s=20

          if you know CIA agents then you know who Ray is but let me share with the readers his CV info from wiki

          “Ray McGovern was born and grew up in the Bronx, New York City. With a scholarship he earned a M.A. with honours in Russian Language, Literature and History at Fordham University, and in the early 1960s served as a U.S. Army infantry intelligence officer in the analysis division on Soviet foreign policy, especially with respect to China and Indochina.[3]

          Career
          McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years (April 1963 to August 1990), serving seven U.S. presidents.[5] His CIA career began under President John F. Kennedy, and lasted through the presidency of George H. W. Bush.[6] McGovern chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President’s Daily Brief, and in the mid-1980s was a senior analyst conducting early-morning briefings one-on-one with the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the assistant to the president for national security.[7]

          At his retirement in 1990, McGovern received the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medal.[2][7] He returned the medal in 2006.[8]”

          RAY VOTED FOR BIDEN AND THINKS TRUMP IS AWFUL. and yet…

          STILL SAYS THAT “THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE REALLY RUNS THIS COUNTRY… IF THEY ESCAPE ALL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WHAT THEY’VE DONE OVER THE PAST 4 YEARS THEN IT WILL BE MORE OF THE SAME”

          Ray decries the hiding of this story in mass media

          “POLITICIZATION OF INTELLIGENCE ON STEROIDS”

          DOES NOT LIKE TUCKER BUT SAYS “HE GOT THE STORY”

          also reports youtube and twitter are censoring Tucker

            1. the letter is worthless. they are all retired. they have no access to information. you are a fool for believing it. Ray voted for Biden because he thinks Trump is a bad president but he gives zero credence to this farce of a letter and dismissed it. And denounced the censorship. At some point people like you should consider being honest like Ray,. You can cast your vote for Biden in spite of the story, and yet, without dismissing legit concerns and apologizing for mass media blackout and censorship

              1. They cite public reasons and their own experience, which still haven’t been addressed. Let me know when they are.

                  1. That’s not a substantive response, of course. Venting your hyperpartisan spleen, which posts often resemble parody of conservative tropes, advances nothing apart from raising your blood pressure. Hyperpartisanship is a plague on the nation.

                    1. I don’t need to address a windbag letter full of no content that only replies on their sullied reputations to buttress their speculative conclusion

                      they are at odds with DNI Ratcliffe and the FBI and the obvious fact that Biden campaign has not denied the laptop.

                      they are essentially trying to discredit citizens of the United States who dislike this news as Russian bamboozled tools

                      I find these “intel” geeks offensive and I would denounce them to their fat faces if i could. but you know they are high falutin nobgobblersi mean hobnobbers ensconced in mansions in Virginia near the DC Swamp and I am just a nobody Yankee up in flyover

                    2. Again, a highly ironic post.

                      Not all of what the letter says conflicts with what the DNI said. They point out that it might involve a Russian op even if the info is accurate, and that’s true even if the Russians weren’t involved in the surfacing of the info. The narrative attached to the laptop story is straight from Russia.

        3. No it doesnt. It clearly states, deep i to the letter that they have no evidence. And that they do not know if Hunter Biden’s emails are real. Thry merely state that the whole incident follows a pattern, in their opinion.

            1. Here is that letter’s “reasoning” and “evidence.” If the Hunter Biden laptop is a Russian plot, then it’s part of a pattern. This case is consistent with the pattern, therefore the laptop is a Russian plot.

              That is neither valid reasoning nor a valid argument. It is the fallacy of begging the question. Insert whatever weasel words you want: “might be,” “possibly,” “potentially.” It is still begging the question.

              1. No, that’s not the reasoning involved. It’s a simple matter of pointing out how the facts of the case fir the pattern of Russian disinfo. Evidently conservatives are having a hard time dealing with the points raised in the letter.

                1. The bottom line is the stupid letter is ITSELF DISINFORMATION

                  not coming from Russians, just coming from 50 washed up, discredited, American hacks drawing oversized federal pensions

                  we’re not going to parse the psyop, we ignore it. but because Sanpete understands that it is a psyop, sanpete does his little part, jamming the subject back and forth out of the same hole making it bigger. the idea is to discredit the truth, and justify the media ignoring it. every additional touch on the file smears the initial impact a little bit more, or so they hope

                  deny, detract, discredit, and detract. NEVER admit. these are the tools of professional liars and that by definition is why creepy intel geeks like Brennan are

                    1. Sanpete, of course to you Kurtz is unhinged but what he is saying applies to you and your only response is to blame it on someone else.

                2. “Evidently conservatives are having a hard time dealing with the points raised in the letter.”

                  Again Sanpete you are engaging in wordplay. The only real question was whether or not there was enough evidence provided by that email for an investigation to take place.

                  You have given up arguing the negative and now accept an investigation so it wasn’t the conservatives having a hard time dealing with the letter. It was you.

                  1. No, that’s obviously false. It matters if there’s a disinfo campaign associated with that email and the other material.

                    Again, I never suggested the material shouldn’t be investigated. That idea was all in your head. What I pointed out repeatedly was that you and others were plainly wrong to claim the email said or implied Joe Biden had met with its author. A simple point you managed to scramble in several ways in order to avoid seeing it.

                    1. If disinformation is happening hopefully it will discovered in an investigation. Right now the evidence is mounting about all the things you fought against earlier. I don’t like to prematurely conclude guilt of a crime, but I find Joe to be less than honest and believe if we look close enough we might find enough to put him in jail.

                      As usual you are trying to change history. word games is your specialty.

                    2. Of course you believe that, for the same reasons you believed the email said there had already been a meeting.

                      Who knows what you think I fought against earlier. Your views about what I’ve said and thought are quite confused, part of your defense mechanisms against them. Your highly ironic continued blaming me for that, as you do yet again, is part of those mechanisms.

                    3. “I never suggested the material shouldn’t be investigated.”

                      That’s good. Because it has been investigated.

                      The emails clearly demonstrate beyond any doubt that all of the Biden’s were paid millions by the ChiCom’s in order to gain favor with VP Joe Biden while he was in office.

                      Apparently you don’t understand how serious that is. But my guess is you do know, but you don’t care.

                    4. Don’t confuse your hyperpartisan certainty with lack of reasonable doubt. Anyone who trusts the intentionally-biased media that’s hyping that line is trading truth for propaganda. Those who don’t do that are far from sharing your view.

                    5. There is always reasonable doubt where Sanpete is concerned and then suddenly there isn’t. She isn’t very credible.

                3. “. . . the facts of the case . . .”

                  What “facts” of the case? The authors admit that they have no evidence for the conclusion that the Hunter Biden laptop is a Russian plot.

                  That slimy letter is more insidious that merely begging the question. Its authors do not believe that the laptop is a Russian plant. But they want readers to believe that. And, apparently, some are gullible enough to do so.

                  1. Sam, It’s hard to follow Sanpete logic because it is void of any content. That is her goal. Run around in circles and never say anything except for an ad hominem so she can object or approve of anything said later on.

                    Take a look at this statement of Sanpete: “Again, one should address the reasons the letter actually cites before dismissing it. You’re taking part of what it says out of context.”

                    She is in essence telling everyone they are wrong and they should “should address the reasons the letter actually cites”. She doesn’t mention any of the reasons. In fact she didn’t even have to read the letter or even understand its content. She is telling everyone else to address the reasons but leaving herself out. Then Sanpete accuses those that dismiss the letter even though she has provided no facts or logic. Then she criticizes everyone for ” taking part of what it says out of context.” but doesn’t mention what was taken out of context.

                    I have to repeat, she can make her comments even if she never read the letter. She is creating an argument without substance and laughing at everyone that she replies to. What she is actually doing is using innuendo to push an ideological point (while saying nothing because she known virtually nothing) hoping that honest and credible people fall for her special type of dishonesty.

                    1. You’ve really become unhinged in your continual lashing out at me, sadly not an unusual reaction when someone gets their ego tweaked. If you paid even slight attention, you’d see that your peculiar idea that I haven’t read the letter makes no sense. Of course I have.

                      Your concern with credibility is telling, you mention it a lot, maybe because you feel your own has been undermined. I care nothing about it. Arguments should stand on their own merits, regardless of who makes them, unless some expertise is claimed.

                      I hope you recover from your injury, whatever its nature, and recover some rational control over your thought process.

                    2. Sanpete, why don’t you clearly state what I said that isn’t true and prove it. Oh, I shouldn’t have asked that because you don’t provide facts, just word spin. You are a time waster with ad hominem attached.

                      ” If you paid even slight attention, you’d see that your peculiar idea that I haven’t read the letter makes no sense. Of course I have.”

                      If you read more carefully and paid attention you would see I didn’t claim you didn’t read the letter. My claim was that you could have written what you wrote with or without reading the letter because you said nothing of substance and I clearly laid that out.

                      “Your concern with credibility is telling, you mention it a lot”

                      Yes, I do. You are not credible and you prove that over and over again.

                      “Arguments should stand on their own merits, regardless of who makes them”

                      That is correct but as I demonstrated your arguments stand on word spin not on fact or logic.

                      “I hope you recover from your injury…”

                      That is innuendo. Instead of saying something you use innuendo without fact or logic.

                      You have only yourself to blame. Over and over I wasted time thinking that you would put away your foolishness and engage in an intelligent discussion. Unfortunately I learned you were an empty vessel except for the continuous ad hominem.

                  2. They have no direct evidence, it only fits a suspicious pattern and has suspicious details surrounding it, laid out in the five paragraphs after they say “There are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement.”

                    Your view that they don’t believe what they say is partisan paranoia. You think 50 people are lying. That’s gullibility.

                    1. Sanpete has done it again. Her real argument is at the end based on innuendo calling Sam gullible and accusing him of thinking “50 people are lying.” Lying about what? That is not mentioned by Sanpete who states she read the letter but produces no tangible fact.

                      One has to wonder what Sanpete’s first paragraph was all about. She says: “They have no direct evidence”. Does she mention any indirect evidence? No. “it only fits a suspicious pattern” Did she at least tell us anything about the suspicious pattern? No. ” has suspicious details surrounding it” What details? No facts. Sanpete is again engaging in word spin.

                    2. the real evidence is the first hand knowledge of Bobulinski who will testify to it under oath

                      corroborated by the laptop emails in spades

                      that’s plenty to make a case that will go to the jury

                      the jury can evaluate reasonable doubt– or lack of it

                      “what 50 washed up CIA schemers said” will not be admitted into evidence in a trial of this case, however. but sanpetey can keep on flogging that if wants to look foolish

                    3. Joe, looks like neither is a judgment on the merits yet. Looks like this is in the early stages.

                      I’m interested in what the guy has to say. The quotes I’ve seen don’t include any first-hand knowledge that Joe Biden was involved, only a vague claim of such knowledge.

                1. Are you afraid to answer the question because it might negatively effect your Social Credit Score?

                  Come on Petey. Answer the question.

                  Jinping does look exactly like Pooh Bear.

                    1. You always say you answered, Sanpete but when someone looks it up they find out you didn’t. Why can’t you be honest?

    3. From 16 October
      WOLF BLITZER: Does it surprise you at all that this information Rudy Giuliani is peddling very well could be connected to some sort of Russian government disinformation campaign?

      CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF: We know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin, that’s been clear for well over a year now that they’ve been pushing this false narrative about this vice president and his son. The idea that the president, the White House counsel and others were made aware that Giuliani was being used by Russian intelligence and using Russian intelligence, in the sense of meeting with an agent of the Kremlin and pushing out this Kremlin narrative, the idea that they were knowing and still on the floor of the Senate during the impeachment trial pushing this Kremlin narrative is pretty breathtaking. But at this point we can’t be shocked anything this administration does, no matter how craven.

      1. Schiff is such a liar it’s amazing he never faces consequences for it. This a material lie about a matter of pressing public urgency. This is no fib. it is a fat stinking lie and he should know about stinking

      2. That doesn’t say the laptop or its contents are part of a Russian operation. The smear that hyperpartisans have attached to those, on the other hand, goes back for over a year, and does have Russian origins and continuing Russian support, as Schiff keeps pointing out.

        1. Here’s the thing you fools ever miss.

          If the Russians says something true, does it necessarily become false?

          Of course not

          Hence you attempted to avoid the substance of the DNC emails and you continue to attempt to avoid the substance of the report that Joe Biden fired the Ukie prosecutor at the behest of Burisma because his son was on the board of directors and got paid to get it done.

          So address the truth of the claim of corruption and quit dodging it.

          Of course the Russians may want us to know about how the corrupt Biden made pals and made money with their adversaries in the rump Ukrainian putsch regime. And yet it is TRUE

          1. And again, we see hyperpartisans have no sense of irony, because they have no self-awareness.

            The substance of the emails as they relate to the Russian disinfo campaign adopted by conservatives has in fact been addressed, including by me. Contrary to what the disinfo campaign alleges, the emails and such do not show any wrongdoing by Joe Biden.

            I’m sure Putin is grateful for your help in his effort to weaken the US.

            1. Who are you to define self-awareness? Who are you to say I lack it? You are just another internet cipher with no more credibility than me. I got your self awareness in the garbage, I just scraped it off my shoe.

              They do show wrongdoing because they state that he obtained a percentage of the corrupt business dealings in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices act. This is just sailing over your arrogant toupee.

              finally, it is Democrats who amplified the Russian influence operations going on 4 years now by discrediting the US election of 2016 out of pique because they lost, the socalled “insurance policy” that corrupt disgraced FBI agent Sztroke referred to, as proven by the guilty plea of DOJ failed lawyer Clinesmith, who falsified evidence given to the FISA court to obtain the bogus warrants to justify the unconstitutional surveillance of the Trump campaign by FBI

              By these acts the failed Democrat leadership of Obama, Biden, and whomever else was involved green lighting that charade, did more to damage election credibility in the eyes of Americans than even Watergate. This is all on the Democratic party’s failed leadership.

              1. Anyone who can read English can see the lack of self-awareness in hyperpartisans. They distort wildly and then complain about the honesty of the other side. It’s the same on the left and right. Hyperpartisans are mirror images of each other, same personalities, same faults, same harms to civic life, with opposite views.

                That a text or email states that Joe Biden got a share via Hunter (with a question mark as I recall) doesn’t show it to be true, let alone that JB would have known where the money came from if he ever received it. Your critical thinking skills are remarkably lax when they wouldn’t serve your hyperpartisanship.

                You paragraph about how the Russian influence is all the Dem’s fault makes no sense. Pointing out the influence isn’t the same as supporting and spreading it as you do.

                1. You cast insults and they slide off my back Petey. My thinking works well. You just haven’t read up on it, because it disgusts you

                  Socalled hyperpartisanship you say is a problem in both parties, but you speak with forked tongue

                  obviously your criticism only is aimed at Trump advocates

                  understand this: we won’t be deterred anymore by any fake bromides and slogans of the failed Republican party of silk-stocking tasseled loafer times.
                  This one wears wool socks and work boots with steel toes. We march!

                  1. Congrats on the shoes and socks!

                    Have no idea why you don’t think I don’t mean exactly what I say about hyperpartisans on both sides, but it doesn’t matter. What I said stands on its own.

  15. WHERE OUR FOCUS SHOULD BE

    Trump defenders are furious that mainstream media hasn’t stopped the presses to focus on only Hunter Biden.

    But just a few weeks back, The New York Times published a major feature story documenting that Trump paid no income tax in 10 of the last 15 years.

    The Times also ran a separate piece documenting Trump’s huge losses in Atlantic City. Trump’s losses were so big, in fact, that only “The Apprentice” saved him from insolvency.

    Those features, from The Times, essentially told us that Trump was a failure as a businessman. Trump, in fact, tried to hijack his father’s entire estate at one point, just to save himself. He still inherited as much as $400 million. But Trump tried to screw his siblings out of their inheritances.

    One should note that 4 years ago, the one argument for Trump’s election was his supposed ‘genius’ as a businessman. Supposedly that ‘genius’ would compensate for the fact that Trump had no experience whatsoever in the field of government.

    These feature stories, by the New York Times, presented revelations that should have been discussed that whole week. But just 2 days later Trump debated Biden and came across as a ranting lunatic. For 90 minutes straight Trump kept yelling like a White George Floyd refusing to get in the squad car. America looked like a Third World country for having such an unhinged president.

    Trump’s performance at that debate became such a big story that The New York Times investigation was quickly forgotten. Then, 2 days after the debate, we learned Trump had the Covid virus. With that development, The New York Times investigation was ‘totally’ forgotten!

    Yet now Trump defenders are howling with outrage because mainstream media is not focusing on ‘only’ Hunter Biden.

    But the real focus should be on that New York Times investigation. Trump currently owes about $400 million to unknown lenders and he might possibly owe the IRS as much as $100 million.

    Every military family in this country should note that Trump has spent a career avoiding taxes. In other words Trump has paid only a pittance to support American troops. Trump is a stooge for Vladimir Putin with no concern for America. We might see Trump flee to Russia in the not so distant future.

    1. Here’s a clue; have a point when you post something. Your rambling diatribe against Trump reveals nothing but your obsessive TDS affliction.

    2. Don’t forget that the NYT reports that Trump paid more in taxes to China than to the US. We need to know all of his foreign business entanglements.

      There’s a reason that Trump is fighting so hard to keep his tax returns from being released to Congress and NY State for appropriate oversight.

      1. That is your problem. You read the NYTimes and think it is providing you with fact. Trump’s tax bill was huge and included a smaller amount that amounted to just under $7.5Million. You guys do not know anything and you don’t even understand the tax codes. Did the NYT report the just under $7.5million? No. That was one part of his tax bill. The times broke the IRS tax payments into parts and only reported the $750 which sounds more like a fee. As usual you and your type got sucked in.

        An accountant or even a sophisticated individual would immediately recognize that he had to have paid a large amount. It’s a three letter abbreviation.

        1. If you actually read the reporting, you’d know that he paid more to the Chinese by an order of magnitude.

          That is your problem, you hate the Times so much that you cannot bring yourself to have an informed discussion.

          1. “If you actually read the reporting, you’d know that he paid more to the Chinese by an order of magnitude.”

            Anonymous, again you play the part of the fool. You can’t even word a statement correctly ” he paid more to the Chinese” He paid more for what? Didn’t anyone ever teach you how to write. Trump paid $100,000+ in Chinese taxes. In American taxes he paid a lot more. I even explained to you the mechanism to a limited extent, but you are used to a relatively common without substantial assets so you may not understand the hint.

            AS far as the NYT is concerned they have very little credibility when politics is involved and you have even less because they can spin a story omitting facts and data. You on the other hand don’t know the facts and data and are left to spin what the left tells you to spin.

            I don’t hate the Times. I hate their dishonesty. How can you hate an inanimate object?

      2. It has been said by the left that Trump is a failed business man. There is a good chance that his years have been up and down. He probably has had years were he has made a lot of money and years were he has shown a loss. There may be years when he has taken no personal salary to further support a bussiness entity. Should he pay taxes in years when his business has shown a loss. Cherry picking a couple of years is just dishonesty by ommission. As to China taxes. His business interests their are not under the same company entity as his businesses in the U.S. it is possible in any given year that his business in China made money and his venture in the U.S did not. Example: You build a hotel that cost a great deal of money to build but the realization of profit is not realized for many years. Iam sure that there are years when Nike has paid more taxes in one nation than in another. These things might be taken into consideration by some. Those with an agenda and a lack of understanding prefer the shallow rendition.

      3. Let’s focus on what both candidates have done while in the White House.

        It looks like Joe Biden was in some sort of collusion with the Ukrainians (“I told them if they didn’t fire the prosecutor [of his son’s corrupt employing company] I would withhold the $Billion loan guarantee”) and that his son was traveling with him to China on deals he profited from (“10% for the ‘Big Guy'”). Besides that there doesn’t seem to be anything significant the Obama-Biden administration accomplished.

        And with Mr Trump he has had the greatest presidency in the history of America. He is the greatest president since Calvin Coolidge and deserves another term.

        Even ask Joe Biden; “are you better now, or when we were under Obama-Biden?”:::::::

        :::::::::::Joe and Jill Biden’s income:::::::::::::

        2016: $396,456

        2017-2019: $16,596,979

        Where did they get such a boost to their income? Did they sell books; make speeches? Get jobs on giant corporate boards?

        Begs to be questioned, but it won’t from the psy-ops Deep State media.

        Suffice it to say I wouldn’t be surprised if Joe Biden votes for President Trump.

        MAGA 2020

        1. Hunter and Joe Biden have not denied the ownership of the laptop. The questions that must follow are: Why haven’t they denied the ownership of the laptop? Why haven’t they denied that the emails are Hunters? Why haven’t they denied the contents of the emails? They simple answer is, they know they can’t. You may deny it, but only their denial is important and it hasn’t happened so far and after this amount of time their denial will not be forthcoming no matter how hard you wish it so.

          1. “During an interview Tuesday on WISN 12 in Milwaukee, Joe Biden was asked whether there was any legitimacy to a statement released Monday by Johnson on Senate Homeland Security Committee letterhead, saying the Biden family profited off Joe Biden’s name and faulting the media for “suppressing” the story. “None whatsoever,” Biden said. “This is the same garbage Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s henchman. It’s a last-ditch effort in this desperate campaign to smear me and my family.”
            https://nypost.com/2020/10/21/biden-sen-johnson-should-be-ashamed-for-alleged-corruption-probe/

            Sounds like a denial to me.

        2. Facts:

          Hunter Biden’s signature is on the work order.
          Hunger Biden’s signature match the history of his signatures.
          Joe Biden has not denied the authenticity of the content of the emails.
          Other recipients of emails have been contacted, and confirmed that those emails are authentic.
          Joe Biden’s legal team has demand the return of Hunter Biden’s laptop. If it was not his laptop, they would have no right to it.

          Why aren’t the press grilling Joe Biden with specific questions. Did you meet with Burisma executives, et al? Ask specific questions, which can be proven true or false, as part of this investigation.

          If anyone told me they had a laptop of mine that proved I sold access to my high office in exchange for money to my son, I would emphatically, and loudly, deny it. I would cooperate with law enforcement. I would demand a full and complete investigation to find out who planted such a lie. I would turn over my computers to the CIA to find out if they had been hacked.

          In short, I would act the opposite of Joe Biden.

          1. You make a lot of claims, but you haven’t provided a shred of evidence.

            Go ahead, start by showing us that Hunger Biden’s signature matches the history of his signatures.

        3. You have all sorts of excuses for Joe where evidence exists. When it comes to Trump you don’t find evidence necessary. You are a hypocrite.

            1. No. I am not like you. I have stated the things I don’t like about Trump and some other things where I disagree with policy. Overall his policies have been so good I put away my differences but would encourage him to look to change policy in those areas.

              Biden has been a failure in almost all areas and I am not alone in saying that and am willing to talk about him issue by issue. He is not straight and he changes with the wind. That is how he survived as a Senator, that and his total support of the two major interests in his state to the disadvantage of the working class. He is and has always been a phony.

    3. It’s called an “October Surprise”, of course it should be the focus of the election now, since it shows the depth of corruption of the Biden-Obama enterprises. But the psy-ops Democrat Party media machine are well organized to follow the instructions of the Deep-State and keep it buried.

Leave a Reply