(10-22-2020, 08:20 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You are really bad at this.
I'll take this as a compliment, coming from you.
All of these issues are subjective without a confession or video evidence. The question is whether or not one is willing to be objective about the way they approach the evidence. You're not. We've been through the whole impeachment argument, ad nauseum. I am referring to the evidence that kicked off the investigations leading to Trump's impeachment. A whistleblower listened to a phone conversation and leaked his version of it to the press. Even though his version was more elaborate than the redacted version, you choose to believe his version, not the released transcript. The basis for the impeachment was a third party suggesting Trump was doing this for personal gain. That is the evidence to which I am referring.
With Biden, you have a laptop that certainly belongs to Hunter. It could have been tampered with, but we don't know that, and there is zero evidence to suggest this is the case. There has been no denial by the Biden camp, and the only thing we have on record is Biden's lawyer calling the shop to try to retrieve it. We have not one, but two counts of shady business dealings, where it appears the Big Man leveraged his power for financial gain. Now questions need to be asked to get to the bottom of this, and the MSM is not doing it's job. I am not saying Joe Biden is guilty of anything. It certainly looks that way, if any of this can be believed, but we need actual journalists asking questions and that's not happening. You can't say the same about Trump.
What will they say when it's all released? Including the images of sexual abuse of a minor. Seems the Hunter apple didn't fall far from creepy joes tree.
(10-22-2020, 09:33 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 08:20 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You are really bad at this.
I'll take this as a compliment, coming from you.
All of these issues are subjective without a confession or video evidence. The question is whether or not one is willing to be objective about the way they approach the evidence. You're not. We've been through the whole impeachment argument, ad nauseum. I am referring to the evidence that kicked off the investigations leading to Trump's impeachment. A whistleblower listened to a phone conversation and leaked his version of it to the press. Even though his version was more elaborate than the redacted version, you choose to believe his version, not the released transcript. The basis for the impeachment was a third party suggesting Trump was doing this for personal gain. That is the evidence to which I am referring.
With Biden, you have a laptop that certainly belongs to Hunter. It could have been tampered with, but we don't know that, and there is zero evidence to suggest this is the case. There has been no denial by the Biden camp, and the only thing we have on record is Biden's lawyer calling the shop to try to retrieve it. We have not one, but two counts of shady business dealings, where it appears the Big Man leveraged his power for financial gain. Now questions need to be asked to get to the bottom of this, and the MSM is not doing it's job. I am not saying Joe Biden is guilty of anything. It certainly looks that way, if any of this can be believed, but we need actual journalists asking questions and that's not happening. You can't say the same about Trump.
I think one of the reasons the mainstream media is treating this the way they are is because they have not been provided with any of the evidence. If Giuliani would just give the various mainstream media outlets a copy of the hard drive, they could evaluate it for themselves and produce a story. But as of now, the only story is that Giuliani and the NY Post are claiming they have this evidence. That, and the very questionable chain of custody, and of course the media are hesitant to give this story legs. They don't have anything to write about except the stories they are writing, which are, as I have described above. What are they supposed to write? "So and so says that so and so says that so and so says that this or that happened."
(10-22-2020, 09:54 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 09:33 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I'll take this as a compliment, coming from you.
All of these issues are subjective without a confession or video evidence. The question is whether or not one is willing to be objective about the way they approach the evidence. You're not. We've been through the whole impeachment argument, ad nauseum. I am referring to the evidence that kicked off the investigations leading to Trump's impeachment. A whistleblower listened to a phone conversation and leaked his version of it to the press. Even though his version was more elaborate than the redacted version, you choose to believe his version, not the released transcript. The basis for the impeachment was a third party suggesting Trump was doing this for personal gain. That is the evidence to which I am referring.
With Biden, you have a laptop that certainly belongs to Hunter. It could have been tampered with, but we don't know that, and there is zero evidence to suggest this is the case. There has been no denial by the Biden camp, and the only thing we have on record is Biden's lawyer calling the shop to try to retrieve it. We have not one, but two counts of shady business dealings, where it appears the Big Man leveraged his power for financial gain. Now questions need to be asked to get to the bottom of this, and the MSM is not doing it's job. I am not saying Joe Biden is guilty of anything. It certainly looks that way, if any of this can be believed, but we need actual journalists asking questions and that's not happening. You can't say the same about Trump.
I think one of the reasons the mainstream media is treating this the way they are is because they have not been provided with any of the evidence. If Giuliani would just give the various mainstream media outlets a copy of the hard drive, they could evaluate it for themselves and produce a story. But as of now, the only story is that Giuliani and the NY Post are claiming they have this evidence. That, and the very questionable chain of custody, and of course the media are hesitant to give this story legs. They don't have anything to write about except the stories they are writing, which are, as I have described above. What are they supposed to write? "So and so says that so and so says that so and so says that this or that happened."
They are supposed to be journalist and do their own research and report their conclusions Marty. That is what journalists did back in the day.
(10-22-2020, 09:54 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 09:33 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I'll take this as a compliment, coming from you.
All of these issues are subjective without a confession or video evidence. The question is whether or not one is willing to be objective about the way they approach the evidence. You're not. We've been through the whole impeachment argument, ad nauseum. I am referring to the evidence that kicked off the investigations leading to Trump's impeachment. A whistleblower listened to a phone conversation and leaked his version of it to the press. Even though his version was more elaborate than the redacted version, you choose to believe his version, not the released transcript. The basis for the impeachment was a third party suggesting Trump was doing this for personal gain. That is the evidence to which I am referring.
With Biden, you have a laptop that certainly belongs to Hunter. It could have been tampered with, but we don't know that, and there is zero evidence to suggest this is the case. There has been no denial by the Biden camp, and the only thing we have on record is Biden's lawyer calling the shop to try to retrieve it. We have not one, but two counts of shady business dealings, where it appears the Big Man leveraged his power for financial gain. Now questions need to be asked to get to the bottom of this, and the MSM is not doing it's job. I am not saying Joe Biden is guilty of anything. It certainly looks that way, if any of this can be believed, but we need actual journalists asking questions and that's not happening. You can't say the same about Trump.
I think one of the reasons the mainstream media is treating this the way they are is because they have not been provided with any of the evidence. If Giuliani would just give the various mainstream media outlets a copy of the hard drive, they could evaluate it for themselves and produce a story. But as of now, the only story is that Giuliani and the NY Post are claiming they have this evidence. That, and the very questionable chain of custody, and of course the media are hesitant to give this story legs. They don't have anything to write about except the stories they are writing, which are, as I have described above. What are they supposed to write? "So and so says that so and so says that so and so says that this or that happened."
In other words, the MSM is practicing the proper journalistic due diligence that is not afforded Trump.
Can we agree on that statement?
I'd rather go the other way, personally. I wish all Presidents and candidates would receive the Trump level of scrutiny. Not necessarily the "get you at all costs" type of journalism, but the "follow every lead thoroughly" type.
(10-22-2020, 10:02 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 09:54 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think one of the reasons the mainstream media is treating this the way they are is because they have not been provided with any of the evidence. If Giuliani would just give the various mainstream media outlets a copy of the hard drive, they could evaluate it for themselves and produce a story. But as of now, the only story is that Giuliani and the NY Post are claiming they have this evidence. That, and the very questionable chain of custody, and of course the media are hesitant to give this story legs. They don't have anything to write about except the stories they are writing, which are, as I have described above. What are they supposed to write? "So and so says that so and so says that so and so says that this or that happened."
In other words, the MSM is practicing the proper journalistic due diligence that is not afforded Trump.
Can we agree on that statement?
No. There was a transcript and a tape recording of Trump's conversation with the President of the Ukraine. In this case, there is no direct evidence on that laptop of Joe Biden doing anything. No emails to or from Joe Biden, no recordings of phone calls, no transcripts, no anything.
I'm not saying the MSM is treating the two things equally. I'm just saying there is direct evidence of what Trump did, and no direct evidence of Joe Biden doing anything. Add to that the rather convoluted chain of custody of that laptop, and the ease with which all that stuff can be faked, and the political motivations of the people who have this so-called evidence, the fact that the so-called evidence has not been turned over to anyone in the mainstream media, and what do you really expect the mainstream media to do? They've been reporting the facts as they know them, which is very little.
(10-22-2020, 10:49 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 10:02 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]In other words, the MSM is practicing the proper journalistic due diligence that is not afforded Trump.
Can we agree on that statement?
No. There was a transcript and a tape recording of Trump's conversation with the President of the Ukraine. In this case, there is no direct evidence on that laptop of Joe Biden doing anything. No emails to or from Joe Biden, no recordings of phone calls, no transcripts, no anything.
I'm not saying the MSM is treating the two things equally. I'm just saying there is direct evidence of what Trump did, and no direct evidence of Joe Biden doing anything. Add to that the rather convoluted chain of custody of that laptop, and the ease with which all that stuff can be faked, and the political motivations of the people who have this so-called evidence, the fact that the so-called evidence has not been turned over to anyone in the mainstream media, and what do you really expect the mainstream media to do? They've been reporting the facts as they know them, which is very little.
You're right "big guy"
(10-22-2020, 09:33 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 08:20 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You are really bad at this.
I'll take this as a compliment, coming from you.
All of these issues are subjective without a confession or video evidence. The question is whether or not one is willing to be objective about the way they approach the evidence. You're not. We've been through the whole impeachment argument, ad nauseum. I am referring to the evidence that kicked off the investigations leading to Trump's impeachment. A whistleblower listened to a phone conversation and leaked his version of it to the press. Even though his version was more elaborate than the redacted version, you choose to believe his version, not the released transcript. (No, the redacted transcript had enough to start an investigation, and in the end Trump's people did not deny the facts. They only claimed their behavior was justified.) The basis for the impeachment was a third party (many third parties, in sworn testimony heard in the US House) suggesting Trump was doing this for personal gain. That is the evidence to which I am referring.
With Biden, you have a laptop that certainly belongs to Hunter. It could have been tampered with, but we don't know that, and there is zero evidence to suggest this is the case. There has been no denial by the Biden camp, and the only thing we have on record is Biden's lawyer calling the shop to try to retrieve it (I haven't seen any record of this, just the owner claiming it happened). We have not one, but two counts of shady business dealings, where it appears the Big Man leveraged his power for financial gain (One while Joe was out of office, and neither has him in the loop). Now questions need to be asked to get to the bottom of this, and the MSM is not doing it's job (maybe they are, and it takes time.). I am not saying Joe Biden is guilty of anything. It certainly looks that way, if any of this can be believed, but we need actual journalists asking questions and that's not happening. You can't say the same about Trump.
"He's a Democrat. Only donated to Democrats. Well respected Naval career. He's basically unimpeachable as a witness."
(10-22-2020, 12:37 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]"He's a Democrat. Only donated to Democrats. Well respected Naval career. He's basically unimpeachable as a witness."
Yeah, some of the emails Guiliani has are legit emails from Hunter.
But are all of them legit?
(10-22-2020, 01:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 12:37 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]"He's a Democrat. Only donated to Democrats. Well respected Naval career. He's basically unimpeachable as a witness."
Yeah, some of the emails Guiliani has are legit emails from Hunter.
But are all of them legit?
According to Bobulinski's testimony enough of them appear so.
(10-22-2020, 01:30 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 01:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, some of the emails Guiliani has are legit emails from Hunter.
But are all of them legit?
According to Bobulinski's testimony enough of them appear so.
I'll be honest, i thought this was more of a moral/ethical scandal as it relates to Biden. Bobulinski (and Devin Archer) makes this prima facia criminal conspiracy, public corruption, money launderimg and POSSIBLY TREASON on behalf of the Democrat nominee.
(10-22-2020, 01:39 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 01:30 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]According to Bobulinski's testimony enough of them appear so.
I'll be honest, i thought this was more of a moral/ethical scandal as it relates to Biden. Bobulinski (and Devin Archer) makes this prima facia criminal conspiracy, public corruption, money launderimg and POSSIBLY TREASON on behalf of the Democrat nominee.
Who needs the nutmeg now, brother?
The bolded above shows exactly how you learn.
The trouble is, you don't have a Joe Biden scandal. You have a Hunter Biden scandal (which may or may not be fabricated). Trump is trying like crazy to turn this supposed Hunter Biden scandal into a Joe Biden scandal, but at this point, due to all the lying he has done over the past 4 years, Trump just doesn't have much credibility with the people he needs to persuade to vote for him. His base will buy anything he says, no questions asked. But that won't get him elected.
To me this looks like desperate last-minute mud-slinging.
Only if you disregard the connection to Joe Biden. I agree there is not yet concrete proof of this, but the former business partner that is now corroborating the emails and suggesting he has proof Biden was involved is worth hearing. It's ridiculous that social media has actively tried to suppress this story. You might not be able to find anything there, but it's definitely worthy of turning over a few rocks. This should be the bi-partisan position on this. Now, the timing of this may be calculated, sure. Just don't think it supersedes the seriousness of the allegations.
(10-22-2020, 02:14 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]The bolded above shows exactly how you learn.
I don't understand.
The fact that some of you don't have an issue with this is kind of disturbing. If this were one of the Trump kids, you would be frothing at the mouth.
Let's face it. Joe Biden is a deadbeat father who raised horrible children. I can't believe some of you want this guy as your president. It is so bizarre.