As Stuart Smiley said on SNL’s Daily Affirmation, “De Nile ain’t just a river in Egypt.” Democrat Rep. Dan Goldman, a member of the House Weaponization of Government committee, caused yet another firestorm of controversy in declaring that the Hunter laptop may be a fake.
That’s right. Despite media, American intelligence, and even other Democrats acknowledging the authenticity of the laptop, Goldman is still spreading denials . . . at a hearing on the weaponization of disinformation policies.
Goldman has previously been criticized for making the case against President Joe Biden in disastrous efforts to discredit whistleblowers.
As in past hearings, the Democrats opposed witnesses who tried to detail the growing evidence of a government-directed censorship system. Members like Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands) continued to deny that there was any evidence of such censorship after spending years opposing the investigation of the program. Even with thousands of pages of evidence and a federal judge finding an “Orwellian” censorship system, Plaskett and her colleagues simply denied that such evidence exists.
However, it was Goldman who stole the show in an exchange with journalist Michael Shellenberger. Shellenberger referenced the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election, a decision that Twitter and other companies now admit was wrong.
However, truth has never been a particularly appealing option for politicians, particularly when it must come with an acknowledgment of past culpability in spreading disinformation.
Recently, we discussed how Leon Panetta also doubled down recently on the claim that the laptop may still be Russian disinformation.
Goldman also opted for denial and distraction over honesty and transparency.
He told Shellenberger: “You’ve talked about the Hunter Biden laptop, and how the FBI knew it existed. You are aware, of course, that the laptop, so to speak, … that was published in the New York Post, was actually a hard drive that the New York Post admitted here was not authenticated as real…It was not the laptop the FBI had. You’re aware of that right?”
Shellenberger responded: “It was the same contents.”
Goldman shot back: “How do you know? You would have to authenticate it to know it was the same contents.”
Shellenger responded: “Are you suggesting the New York Post participated in a conspiracy to construct the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop?”
Goldman: “No, sir, the problem is that hard drives can be manipulated by Rudy Giuliani or Russia.”
Shellengberger: “But what’s the evidence that that happened?”
Goldman: “Well, there is actual evidence of it. But the point is, it’s not the same thing.”
Goldman then concluded with the bizarre claim that “I’m glad you agree with me, Mr. Shellenberger, that transparency is the most important thing.”
Goldman has yet to produce the “actual evidence” that the hard drives were changed by Giuliani or Russia.
Before the election, many of us noted that the files on the laptop were easily authenticated and were confirmed by the other parties involved in some of these exchanges. Since then the most damaging emails and messages have been authenticated and are not being denied by the Bidens.
There is of course a term for such conspiracy theories used by Democrats to justify censorship: disinformation. Indeed, the Biden Administration is seeking the censorship of true information deemed “malinformation.”
As someone raised in a liberal, politically active Democratic family in Chicago, it is distressing to see the party continue the push for censorship and blacklisting. However, the effort to deny the authenticity of these emails is particularly chilling. The transfers of millions to the Biden family and related meetings have now been confirmed by witnesses, including some questioned by Goldman.
The fact that Goldman used a hearing on the weaponization of disinformation policies to spread disinformation is crushingly ironic.
This is why floating down “de Nile” remains one of the most treacherous paths in the world.
What is it you want to have us do about this information? You state the fact that you are a liberal and grew up in a political Democrat mindset and then you tell us the obvious error of the current Democrat mindset yet that is where you leave it. I’m wondering what you think the next step is? Is it enough to state the obvious? Are you cleansed of all other responsibility? Don’t you think you owe your readers something more? Eh, being a liberal Democrat, we should expect nothing more.
This toady is trying to out Schiff, Adam Schiff. Saw him do a follow up to a question asked by another Democrat who was trying to get Mayorkis to admit the border is not being controlled. Goldman didn’t bother to ask Mayorkis anything but opted to apologize for and then attack his fellow Democrat for daring to ask such a stupid questions.
I like your honesty, but just what is the point of your many informative posted revelations? Coming as you do from a Democrat upbringing and mindset what is it you recommend to be done about an obvious error of law or justice that you tell us about. Don’t you owe us something more?
I submit that our very own Svelass may indeed be “own goal” Goldman. They have exactly the same characteristics.
Hey Svelass, do you still think that it was Tony Bobulinski who suggested “10% for the Big Guy”, and not James Gilliar?
Hey Svelass, do you still think that Christianity teaches to treat your fellow man the same way you treat the “Son of the Living God”?
Do you agree with Gigi, your sister, that inflation was 8% when Trump left office?
Do you still think the State of Florida does property tax assessments?
Do you still think that Archer didn’t give any details as to the nature of the meeting at the Naval Observatory in his sworn testimony?
Do you still think that who was called from Dubai, to get help with pressure “from Shokin” is irrelevant? Is that because it was Captain Kangaroo that was called?
I submit that our very own Svelass may indeed be “own goal” Goldman. They have exactly the same characteristics.
Jimmy, I had the same thought when I read Goldman’s comment bolded below. Svelaz uses that line often, as if it were fact. This blog would improve tremendously if everyone considered a reply to Svelaz was a contribution to his bank account.
Goldman then concluded with the bizarre claim that “I’m glad you agree with me, Mr. Shellenberger, that transparency is the most important thing.”
“Fake 81 million votes! Fake president.” Unfortunately while they are fake in the sense that they are/were
illegal, they are in fact very real in that they are a theft of our liberty/freedom.
“As someone raised in a liberal, politically active Democratic family in Chicago, it is distressing to see the party continue the push for censorship and blacklisting.”
Professor, time has passed. It is time to recognize the Democrat Party of today has nothing in common with the Democrat Party of yesterday.
S Meyer, your point is right on the money. As Reagan said 45 years ago, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, they left me”.
JFK, Sam Nunn, Daniel Moynihan, Joe Leiberman and any other “normal” Democrat could not get elected in a Democrat primary today. Obama, Clinton (both of them) Schumer, Pelosi all said a country needs borders but now borders are racist and “no person is illegal”. Name a Democrat from 20 years ago that would agree that stealing $900 dollars or less shouldn’t get you arrested. Name a Democrat from 20 years ago that would agree that you should be allowed to talk to 2nd graders about their gender identification or support Trans reading hours. Name a Democrat from 20 years ago that would support Hamas and the Gaza Palestinians that spit at captured Israeli women over dead Jews.
U are very correct!
You’re absolutely correct, Seth. I believe two of the most distinguished constitutional scholars of our age, Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz, need to explain why they still call themselves Democrats. That might have some nuanced, deeper meaning to them, but not to the average citizen. So if JT and Dershowitz won’t publicly denounce the Democratic party, despite their righteous condemnation of their actions, then why should the average citizen? I’m not suggesting at all that they endorse the Republican party. They should use their public profile and professorial chops to educate voters on how this constitutional republic and the rights of our people are being threatened, how specific policies and rhetoric are doing the damage and what is needed to get us on the right track. If they can’t say what Reagan had the courage to say, then all their “principles” will prove meaningless.
Olly, and others beating up Turley for being slow to grasp the obvious.
It is hard for most people to let go of cherished things from their past – eve when they have become rotten and distorted.
I am sometimes critical of Turley for not going far enough.
At the same time I am watching as he is slowly red pilled.
Republicans are not and never were perfect – which is why I am a libertarian.
I have never been a liberal, but like Turley I had and continue to hold many liberal principles and values.
For most of the past century plus – it has been conservatives that have been willing to infringe on free speech and other individual rights.
In the past decade + that has changed radically. Democrats and the left are outdoing Sen. Joe MacCarthy in seeking to have government punish people for their speech and political views AND seeking to coerce private actors to do the same.
I am ashamed of those like MacCarthy. I am ashamed of the blacklists.
That Democrats today would actually do WORSE is evidence that they have learned NOTHING from history.
Regardless, lets not get personal regarding Turley – he is a work in progress.
He will get there slowly – the left will guarantee that.
Olly, and others beating up Turley for being slow to grasp the obvious.
Don’t look now John, but your liberal slip is showing. If stating the truth about someone is “beating them up,” then you, me and other conservatives on this blog beat people up every day. “Slowly being red-pilled” and “work in progress” are meaningless statements regarding two influential constitutional scholars. The matrix of this Regime is not something these two are slowly coming to realize. They can run circles around everyone explaining in “engineering-style” detail the difference between what a constitutional republic should look like and the Regime’s matrix. But when they don’t identify the engineers of the matrix with the same eloquence they do with our founding engineers, they are omitting the most vital piece of information voters need to know: who is responsible for the matrix? Bongino answers that question by saying: Republicans may not be the solution to all of our problems, but Democrats are absolutely the cause of them. If JT doesn’t pick up the pace, he and his precious 1st amendment hill will be disappeared before he knows it.
Olly, I think it is difficult to define the extent of the positions of Dershowitz and Turley in terms of Democrat and Republican. Both are civil libertarians, which can be on either side. The heavy weight of the committed civil libertarian, added to the minor shift of left or right, might be committing them to positions (Rep v.Dem) that seem far more significant than they are when peeling away their strong support of civil liberties.
Seth, that’s a fair assessment and I agree with them being committed civil libertarians. At some point though, that commitment has to translate into a vote for actual candidates that are not running on the Civil Libertarian ticket. For the most part, the average American voter will be voting for a Republican or Democrat and quite possibly just a straight party vote. Whether JT or Dershowitz like it or not, they are in a position to have a great influence on voters. Voters that agree with their libertarian views might only consider what party (Democrat) they “claim” to be a part of and vote only on that connection. My point is, it’s not enough for either of them to lay out in excruciating detail all of the ways the Democratic party has become a Leftist Totalitarian Regime, while at the same time declare they are Democrats. They have to publicly do a Reagan.
Dershowitz was clearly for Biden and the Democrat ticket the last time I bumped into him before the election (an infrequent event). He was glib, so I wonder if he was unhappy with his choices. I want to bump into him again now that Bden showed his face on Israel. Dershowitz might be more enlightened.
He has been a Democrat his whole life. Do you expect him to change in his 80’s? I don’t think he concerns himself much with the other questions except Israel and where they impact civil liberties. The hard left pretends to be civil libertarians as it helps them in their quest despite their totalitarian tendencies.
When pressed for an answer as to where he stood on political issues, Milton Friedman’s default was classical liberal or libertarian, but these things mean different things to different people. The liberal of today is generally a progressive, not a classical liberal. I’ll bet Dershowitz has much more in common with Friedman’s classical liberalism than he does with the Democrat liberal of today.
One has to be careful judging Turley. He is in his early 60s with a good part of his career in front of him. He must frequently accommodate the hatred he could face if he were brutally honest. Look at Dershowitz and what happened. He was distanced from his friends.
The liberal of today can be a non-thinking, heinous person who can only follow those in front as they fall off the cliff.
Seth, I truly appreciate your comments and the concerns for the well-being of JT and Alan, but we have to face the reality of where we are exactly in the Course of human events. Democrats have turned into the same type of Regime that the colonists were facing in 1773. We have accumulated our own list of grievances against this Regime and we are at that point where it has become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, Most of us, if not all of us on this blog, don’t have the reach to make a difference in the upcoming election. Dershowitz does, Turley does. All they need to do is risk standing on the shoulders of the giants they’ve built their careers on and publicly declare they are denouncing the shell of a party they’ve supported their entire lives. There is precedent.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
You are correct in spirit, but to lead into battle is the younger, not the old Dershowitz, to carry the mantel. For Turley, sometimes compromise leads to a better turn of events than being crucified. He has his voice, but it is likely limited to one shot. Will one shot win the war? I don’t think so.
You may be correct; no one knows, but I do not think so now.
Great leaders have the credibility to be respected. No doubt the actual battle will be carried out by those they inspire. But I cannot think of a better cause that Dershowitz could leverage his life’s work on than this. As far as your choice of words being crucified, Jesus Christ never compromised in the face of evil.
More leaders have died in their quest than leaders we know and recognize. Therefore, I don’t count on either of these two being the white knight to overpower the enemy.
We must also look at what we are fighting against and how each fits into the picture.
I believe in an honest world that Trump would win over Biden, Harris, or any other unknown Democrat. We do not live in that world. Alan’s body of knowledge resides in the law, not in the theft of elections (via computer etc.), weaponization of the DOJ, or biased media. What is his influence? His leftist friends left him. What do you think would happen to those that were never friends?
If Trump should suddenly be unable to take over the role of the Republican candidate, are we preparing for this possibility that could occur? No. That is why I believe the Republicans should act differently than they are: If they were united and a quick switch had to be made, a DeSantis or Hailey would likely win, even at the last minute.
There are many reasons I don’t pin my hopes on a Dershowitz. The same is true for Turley, but with additional reasons. He will not kill the enemy, but his place in society today can make him crucial at the right time(s) if he isn’t crucified first.
” As far as your choice of words being crucified, Jesus Christ never compromised in the face of evil.”
I don’t want to get into long religious discussions, but throughout the Bible, great people adjust to reality because not all choices are based on good and evil. Jacob married Leah and then Rachel (whom he pledged to wed). The Torah says not to marry sisters (excluding the marriage if a husband dies or is killed). That was clearly against the Torah, but was his piousness of more importance than his word and the hurt Rachel would carry? I am excluding more significant compromises made by other biblical figures, including the one you mentioned, because I would not want to cause insult to any of the great figures that we both find significant in our lives.
If you know the Old Testament, think of the relationship of Jacob and Esau. There, one could take the position of evil enhancing the good and see how one might sacrifice the truth for the end.
Seth, thank you for the discussion.
Thank you as well, Olly. Your points are still on me, as I will carry them into the future when things become more apparent.
Seth, I found out today that Angel Studios (The Chosen and the Sound of Freedom) has acquired the rights to a movie about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. His legacy of what he was willing to sacrifice in the face of evil is what I’m praying JT and AD consider.
BONHOEFFER shares the true story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a pacifist pastor determined to live his life with uncompromising political and spiritual courage while choosing to live in Berlin during the Third Reich. Conspiring to bring an end to the Nazi regime, he fearlessly spoke the truth while facing unyielding oppression and evil. His impact is still felt around the world today.
https://www.angel.com/press/release/angel-studios-acquires-feature-film-bonhoeffer-slated-for-2024-release
We agree on the need for powerful voices at the right time. However, one must consider that what you seek might not meet the statistical win.
We only hear of those who made the difference we look for. The many rest died, and whatever power they had was killed with them.
Addendum: “Love means never having to admit the laptop/content is yours.”
and the Republicans WILL continue to Fund the Criminal Fascist Democrats! So there you go!
why not lie…they get away with it!
Meanwhile republicans are jailed and harassed for TELL THE TRUTH!
Time to cut 50% of government spending and JAIL thousands of Democrats from across government for their ACTUAL conspiracies!
Start with the Russian Hoax and protecting of the Biden criminal KLAN!
Jailing real demonrcat criminals is just naughty no no retaliation for the illegal and immoral jailing and torture of innocent magas and republicans and should not be embarked upon, as becoming the thing you hate is, like, totally frowned upon.
“We can’t allow our side to stoop so low and become them ! If they kill us unfairly we win ! ”
(just keep pretending no one is in danger and no one has been screwed and pray for the neocon Passover – as in
the horror passes over you and onto someone else)
this message is approved by demented neocon all in corruptocrats who are so blackwashed and blackmailed their brains no longer function, cheeks fully turned, always
The real problem is there are many American voters who believe the lies.
all the fraud ballots do! Produced by the Hundreds of THOUSANDS!
Margot: Amen. Having the MSM media showcase you, while casually dismissing others, lends to that credibility.
As a member of my own politically active Democrat family of union supporters in Illinois that supported Daly, the current evolution of deniers are even more blatant liars than Daly! My family always had jobs in government agencies in southern Illinois which protected us from the poverty everyone else faced.
The only liars that are worse are the left wing media. Turkey is a rare exception!
This just adds to the long list of foolish remarks from this she/it/he/whatever poor excuse of a representative from a district that must not be able to find someone with any brains.
Just like Mao or Stalin, the dems have decided that they alone are the government. They will never relent. The slow waking of ‘classical’ liberals has just been far too slow. It remains to be seen if we can reverse course or we simply have to watch it all crumble. If even half of the disbelievers had woken up five or six years it might have been different. 😐 says a lot about us, too.
Goldman didn’t lie though. He very cleverly, by stating the hard drive wasn’t real, totally skipped the part that it was an exact duplicate, I assume a bit for bit duplicate, as created in a forensic lab, of the original drive, but not the actual drive from the Biden laptop, which could still be used in a court of law as the process does not alter the original.. He was playing to a known audience, the lapdog media, who would never call him on his subterfuge, and in fact didn’t.
Paul MAc made the copy before providing the original to the FBI.
I beleive there are actually 2 drives – Hunter left TWO laptops with Mac.
He also lost a 3rd to a russian hooker.
While establishing chain of custody is important for a criminal trial ever there – If the FBI got the contents over the internet from Russia, they would still be able to use it in a trial.
You can authenticare the entire contents as a whole – if you have a detailed uninterrupted chain of custody.
But you can also autheticate each individual email you wish to use in trial, by confirming from the senders/recipients that the email is accurate.
Little Danny Goldman is frantically trying to endear himself with the Woke Left while there’s still time. Naked self-promotion.
All right ZZ!
I’m not terribly chilled by Mr Goldman’s delusions – at this point, he looks extremely foolish. In fact, with every every revelation that comes out about the deep and vast project of the weaponized US Government, I sense the political power of those who would abuse the public trust diminishing – and I include to many Republicans in this camp too.
The question I am concerned about is will any of this abuse be able to be stopped with what seems an recalcitrant administration, happily complicit Senate, timid House of Representatives who are in place NOW? The other one is this: Has the left successfully neutered the Supreme Court or will they protect the Constitution?
WILL the 2024 election, if there actually US one, reflect the actual will of the people or will it reflect the will of thise in positions to control narratives as they are doing now?
The Canadian lady on the panel clearly understands the threat like millions of Americans do. Mr Turley, with great respect to you, I regretfully count you among those who’ve been incredibly slow to see what so many of us have been warning about since 2017. Those in Washington seem so focused on the trees that they can’t see the deadly forest beyond.
Dan Goldman based on his actions and current and prior comments and theories is a Clown/Not Creditable. He seems he is trying to make a name for himself in the Left Wing Dems.
Goldman is the result of three unfortunate trends:
(1) The election of retards to Congress.
(2) The willingness of cynical politicians to game the system.
(3) The gullibility of Americans.
I think of Little Danny as the “White Al Sharpton”.
Goldman is the definition of White Privilege and White Supremacy.
It’s Stuart Smalley, not Smiley, doggone it! 😉
Fake laptop…… NO!
Fake 81 million votes! Fake president.
100% Correct! They trying to stall out on that laptop cuz it’s already been verified how many times now to which it’s Very Real & Very Truly Belongs to the powder sniffing delinquent child of Sleepy Slow Joe Bye Den!
Just a bit ago the 8th circuit issued a major VRA ruling that is likely to favorably head tot he Supreme court.
Democrats have been very successful – esp in 2020 in gutting election integrity laws – the constraints against mailin voting voter ID laws, signature verification laws, election transparency laws, even redistricting because federal courts have been allloing private groups to use the VRA to sue state and local election officials. The 8th circuit has essentially said that just as Trump and Trump supporters were blocked on standing issues from suing after the 2020 election, that these groups should have been blocked – not only in 2020 and beyond but also prior.
This is a huge deal as many states will not even attempt to secure their elections because of the threats of lawsuits.
Raffensbergr is currently defending an election integrity lawsuit in GA that will proceed BEFORE Ranni’s case over signature verification in GA.
Raffensberger caved to Democratic interest groups in 2020 and gutted GA’s signature verification which was REQUIRED BY LAW.
He is now being sued for failing to follow the law. In a random audit in Cobb Co. GA – one of the least likely to have issues in 2020 300 of 5000 mailin ballots were found to FAIL to comply with GA signature verification laws. 30 were found to be outright FRAUD.
That is 6% and 0.56 respectively – Trump lost GA by 0.25%. If the Cobb County Random audit is reflective of GA as a whole – or worse still the Fulton county numbers are worse that Cobb County which is near a certainty, that could mean hundreds of thousands of potentially fraudulent ballots in GA alone.
This directly intersects the massive democratic ballot harvesting operations that have been empowered by mailin voting.
Ballot harvesting is illegal in every state except CA – surprise surprise.
In its most benign form Ballot harvesting is party operatives – determining who has not voted, arranging to get them ballots, going to their homes to cajole them into voting, and then taking their ballots to ballot dropboxes to assure that they actually vote. This can only occur with mailing voting, or in states that have some form of absentee voting by mail – rather than by coming to the courthouse.
In its most benign form – this is WORSE than allowing political parties into the voting booths at the polls. – When people vote from home – their home IS the polling place. If you allowed political operatives into the polls, atleast people would still be deciding on their own whether to vote and in many places they would be lobbied concurrently by both democratic operatives and republicans. Further it is highly unlikely that letting political operatives into the polls would result in voters being coerced or induced(bribed) into voting for a specific candidate.
If you allow blank ballots out of the direct oversight of election officials. You guarantee that you will eventually have both coercion and inducement.
But lets pretend that most of the ballot harvesting in 2020 and since has been begnign. That democrats are getting voting information form Suckerbergs groups that have taken over local election administration – coincidentally ONLY in the 6 major cities in 6 swing states that flipped the election. Lets presume that All that occured was both parties (only in places that were 70+% democrat) were given real time information on who had not yet voted, And that both parties had an equal opportunity to purpotedly gently urge reluctant voters to vote. The mere fact this violation of the law only occurred in democrat dominated counties is itself a form of election fraud.
Regardless, we are assuming that miracle of miracles political operatives – unlike in the US past, do not magically get inspired to coerce or induce voters, that the biggest direct effect is to nudge reluctant voters to vote – and lets presume that as fraudulent as that is – that somehow people are OK with that – even though it is illegal – and in 38 states also unconstitutional.
The next problem you have is that these same party operatives have not merely the power to coerce/induce people to vote, they also KNOW in realtime who has an has not voted. Some people are going to REFUSE to cooperate. Others are just not going to be home. You now have party operatives with the data on who has and has not voted. As well has giving them access to blank ballots. What stops these same operatives from skipping trying to coerce/induce voters to vote, cutting out the voter entirely and just filling out the ballots.
In in person elections we have a SMALL voter fraud problem – contra they left there is a reasonable – yet small amount of in person voter fraud throughout the country. It is NOT going to be possible with in person voting and secure ballot handling to gerate fraud greater than a fraction of a percent. But that is often enough to tip elections. In 2020 in NH – Trump lost by 5500 votes. Allouette lost the Senate race by 2500 votes.
6500 NH provisional ballots were counted – these are for people who could not provide proof of voting eligability in NH on election day.
There are many possibilities – recent arrivals as an example. But the most common reason is College Students voting in the state they attend school – rather than the state the actually live in. Nearly all states make it difficult for college students to establish residency in their state – not becaue of election fraud, but because states subsidize colleges, and they do not want to subsidize out of state students. Further granting collecge students residency would create a massive group of voters with weak morals the oportunity to vote TWICE – once in their home state and once in the state of their college.
Anyway of the 6500 provisional ballots counted, NH was not able to verify eligability of 3500 of those after 18months.
THOSE BALLOTS WERE COUNTED, and that would an inperson election that was won by less than the number of unverified ballots.
Allow voting by mail and you amplify the problem by a factor of 100.
There are myriads of ways to scam mailin voting. Ballots are NOT printed like currency – they are trivial to forge – and if as AZ has been doing you photocopy blanks or print them on demand at polls they are trivial to counterfeit. There is no means to prevent counterfeiting anything printed on a laser printer. One of the many reasons for inperson voting requirements is that ballot counterfeiters need to no only counter fiet and fill out ballots, but they have to corrupt election officials to get those ballots into the election. a large portion of our election laws serve the purpose of assuring that if there is a problem there can be no finger pointing. Let ballots out of the control of election officials and you have 1000 ways to inject fraudulent ballots.
Regardless, back to 2020 and subsequent. If you know who has not voted, you can skip coerce and induce and just fill out and deposit the ballot for them. Signature verification is just one part of the process to make that type of fraud harder.