Are They Lying Butt Holes or Incompetent Clowns?

[code1211]

You quoted my comment but replied to just part of it and ignored the rest. Hence, my amputation observation.

Nothing amputated. The context was presented and could be reviewed easily by any reader.

 

[JMB802]

Will see what develops.
Good luck counselor with a broken chain of custody defense. Good thing for Hunter you are not representing him.

I believe the FBI has enough expertise to determine if evidence was tampered with.

Are you under the believe evidence received from a third party is automatically tainted and law enforcement can't determine through documentary and testimonial evidence whether that item is admissible?

Why is the FBI still investigating? Do you think the FBI would continue their investigation if the computer was not admissible? What other evidence do they have?

Give me your half dozen arguments right off the bat. How will you prove that the evidence is not what the prosecutor claims? How will you prove the FBI did not have continuous possess of the evidence from the time it was seized? Can you proof that the evidence did not remain in the same condition during any transfer at the time it was seized.

The FBI took possession of the laptop in 2019 and the laptop repairman sent the materials to Rudy's lawyer, a Trump ally, in the summer of 2020.

Even if you believe that the FBI and the DOJ were covering up evidence that was harmful to Joe, the Trump administration still had plenty of time to present the laptop material to the Republican-controlled Senate and ask that they begin an independent investigation before the election.

Why did that not happen?

 

[less right]

Give me your half dozen arguments right off the bat. How will you prove that the evidence is not what the prosecutor claims? How will you prove the FBI did not have continuous possess of the evidence from the time it was seized? Can you proof that the evidence did not remain in the same condition during any transfer at the time it was seized.

That's all stuff the prosecution needs to prove, not the defendant. And you're a lawyer?

 

[code1211]

Do you have a link to that poll? Are you saying that the pollsters contacted millions of people to get their opinion about the laptop story?

It doesn't require contacting millions in order to determine their opinion. Margin of error expands and contracts based on the "sample" size.

Explained: Margin of error

When you hear poll results reported with a certain margin of error, that’s only part of the story.

news.mit.edu

The poll is not even a marginally scientific one, but seems to be supported by the plummeting popularity of the guy that was installed by the biased and deceptive media narratives now being exposed by reality.

The content of the lap top revealed the ridiculous life style of Hunter and the outrageous corruption of the Biden Family.

17% of Biden Voters Would Not Have Voted for Him Had They Known Scandals Liberal Media Censored - LifeNews.com

The left-wing news media didn’t just poison the information environment with their incessantly negative coverage of President Trump going into the 2020 election. They also refused to give airtime to important arguments of the Republican campaign — both pro-Trump and anti-Biden — which meant...

www.lifenews.com

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, Sponsored by Miranda Devine's "LAPTOP FROM HELL" Friday shows...

www.rasmussenreports.com

 

[JMB802]

It doesn't require contacting millions in order to determine their opinion. Margin of error expands and contracts based on the "sample" size.

Explained: Margin of error

When you hear poll results reported with a certain margin of error, that’s only part of the story.

news.mit.edu

The poll is not even a marginally scientific one, but seems to be supported by the plummeting popularity of the guy that was installed by the biased and deceptive media narratives now being exposed by reality.

The content of the lap top revealed the ridiculous life style of Hunter and the outrageous corruption of the Biden Family.

17% of Biden Voters Would Not Have Voted for Him Had They Known Scandals Liberal Media Censored - LifeNews.com

The left-wing news media didn’t just poison the information environment with their incessantly negative coverage of President Trump going into the 2020 election. They also refused to give airtime to important arguments of the Republican campaign — both pro-Trump and anti-Biden — which meant...

www.lifenews.com

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, Sponsored by Miranda Devine's "LAPTOP FROM HELL" Friday shows...

www.rasmussenreports.com

I researched this before I asked the question. Your first comment about the poll is dishonest and the follow-up comment is dishonest as well. I'm not going to waste my time getting in a silly pissing match with you. Have a lovely day.

 

[code1211]

Did you know that Hunter Biden once owned a laptop?

LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!

Not surprisingly, an incredibly stupid post.

 

[Michael Cole]

LOL
The laptop shows him smoking crack and he is with prostitutes.
What did you say about trying to keep up?

Now that Joe Biden’s president, the Times finally admits: Hunter’s laptop is real

First, The New York Times decides more than a year later that Hunter Biden’s business woes are worthy of a story. Then, deep in the piece, in passing, it notes that Hunter’s laptop is l…

nypost.com

That is a crack pipe hanging out of Hunters mouth, right?
I'm I going to fast for you?

Good luck sending those photos to the lab.

You can't charge someone with drug possession using a photo as evidence. Is there proof she's a hooker? Is there proof he wasn't in Nevada?

Give your imagination a rest. It won't hurt as much when you realize the check really isn't in the mail.

 

[code1211]

I'm not convinced.
"
"The FACT of the matter is this: The lying clowns were lying due to political bias and no facts whatever."

That's a statement that interprets events. An interpretation is necessarily not a fact.

The question I have now is about intent. Intent comes up because the charges that you and others suggest for Hunter depend on intent for a conviction. A procesutor would have to prove that Hunter willingly and purposefully meant to commit a crime. It's also applicable to the 51 people who signed the letter. You believe they intentially lied, but I'm saying they stated something they honestly believed. They signed a paper saying, ( and some are still saying publicly ) that it was most likely a russian intervention. I'm not saying they were/are correct, I'm just saying I don't see an intent to lie to the public. After the letter was signed, people spoke about the letter, and lied about the letter, and lied about the contents of the letter and of the laptop. But the letter itself is still just the letter. I'm not convinced they intended to decieve voters.

The folks who signed the letter assertively went out of their way to claim that a set of lies were facts.

They were in no way coerced into asserting that these lies were facts unless the lying thieves who would benefit from them lying were applying pressure to make them lie.

They had no way, obviously, to verify whether or not these lies were facts. If they had methods available to verify if the lies were or were not lies, they failed to employ those methods effectively.

The only POSSIBLE conclusion is that they were lying and doing so by commission.

Disagree? Prove it.

They were not required to make any comment at all to anyone in any form. They did. Both the lies they told and the reasons they told them are obvious.

They wanted to help to rig an election.

 

[soap box]

The folks who signed the letter assertively went out of their way to claim that a set of lies were facts.

They were in no way coerced into asserting that these lies were facts unless the lying thieves who would benefit from them lying were applying pressure to make them lie.

They had no way, obviously, to verify whether or not these lies were facts. If they had methods available to verify if the lies were or were not lies, they failed to employ those methods effectively.

The only POSSIBLE conclusion is that they were lying and doing so by commission.

Disagree? Prove it.

They were not required to make any comment at all to anyone in any form. They did. Both the lies they told and the reasons they told them are obvious.

They wanted to help to rig an election.

I should prove it , if I disagree? My mama taught me to never bother proving a negative, it doesn't make sense.

You wrote that the "only POSSIBLE conclusion is"..... That is a sure way to get yourself in trouble, and we've discussed that before . It would be more accurate to say 'I can't imagine any other conclusion' .

We are at an impasse in this discussion. I see no reason to beleive that they signed that letter to intentionally mislead the public. You are certain that they did.

 

[j brown's body]

The FBI took possession of the laptop in 2019 and the laptop repairman sent the materials to Rudy's lawyer, a Trump ally, in the summer of 2020.

Even if you believe that the FBI and the DOJ were covering up evidence that was harmful to Joe, the Trump administration still had plenty of time to present the laptop material to the Republican-controlled Senate and ask that they begin an independent investigation before the election.

Why did that not happen?

Perhaps they found no crime but thought it could still be useful to release just before the election.

The thing I don't understand is if they wanted peopled to believe it was genuine, and surely they did, why did they have Giuliani, who was hanging out with a Ukrainian Russian agent and identified by the FBI as a Russian target, do the releasing?

 

[j brown's body]

According to this story from MSN, "The 50 former intelligence officials who signed a letter suggesting Russia was involved with the Hunter Biden laptop saga, are now silent regarding the lies they told.

If they were not lying, they are incompetent clowns.

If they were lying, they were complicit in rigging the election and allowing the criminally involved, incompetent and feckless Biden to win.

By extension, we can pin the responsibility for every victim of the current Russian invasion on them.

Our spies are criminal. The only question is whether they are criminally incompetent or criminally corrupt and dishonest.

Which is it? My guess? All of the above.

Ex-intel officials silent over letter claiming Russian involvement in Hunter Biden laptop saga

This seems unfair. What lies did they tell?

 

[JMB802]

Perhaps they found no crime but thought it could still be useful to release just before the election.

The thing I don't understand is if they wanted peopled to believe it was genuine, and surely they did, why did they have Giuliani, who was hanging out with a Ukrainian Russian agent and identified by the FBI as a Russian target, do the releasing?

Exactly. Why did they appoint hapless Rudy and why go to the Daily Caller? Why not the WSJ? And why did Tucker make a big stink about the material and then remain silent when he finally received the lost package?

 

[j brown's body]

Exactly. Why did they appoint hapless Rudy and why go to the Daily Caller? Why not the WSJ? And why did Tucker make a big stink about the material and then remain silent when he finally received the lost package?

They just don't care. Thank God they are utterly incompetent. So important that they don't get another bite at the apple.

 

[soap box]

The folks who signed the letter assertively went out of their way to claim that a set of lies were facts.

They were in no way coerced into asserting that these lies were facts unless the lying thieves who would benefit from them lying were applying pressure to make them lie.

They had no way, obviously, to verify whether or not these lies were facts. If they had methods available to verify if the lies were or were not lies, they failed to employ those methods effectively.

The only POSSIBLE conclusion is that they were lying and doing so by commission.

Disagree? Prove it.

They were not required to make any comment at all to anyone in any form. They did. Both the lies they told and the reasons they told them are obvious.

They wanted to help to rig an election.

The letter is attached below, please note the paragraph:
"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney 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."

They go on to elaborate what led them to this supposition.

Another note of interest to our esteemed collegues :

“U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence."

It's very signifcant that they clearly state they do not have proof. That means they are not claiming a fact, they are stating an informed assessment to the best of their ability.
That kind of a statement is not claiming a fact, and cannot be a lie, the same way an opinion doesn't count as a lie.

 

[Outlook]

Good luck sending those photos to the lab.

You can't charge someone with drug possession using a photo as evidence. Is there proof she's a hooker? Is there proof he wasn't in Nevada?

Give your imagination a rest. It won't hurt as much when you realize the check really isn't in the mail.

You are still behind. I never said he would be charged with drug possession or spending money on a hooker. I said he is a piece of scum and his activities are in fact illegal. But he won't be charged.
He won't even be charged with a felony for lying on his gun application.
The FBI are looking at other criminal activity.
That being said, if you can read, he is in a protective class.
The issue as to whether the photos are real and whether he was smoking crack and with the hooker, he was. He never denied it.

 

[Outlook]

That's all stuff the prosecution needs to prove, not the defendant. And you're a lawyer?

And you can read?

"How will you prove that the evidence is not what the PROSECUTOR claims?"

 

[Outlook]

The FBI took possession of the laptop in 2019 and the laptop repairman sent the materials to Rudy's lawyer, a Trump ally, in the summer of 2020.

Even if you believe that the FBI and the DOJ were covering up evidence that was harmful to Joe, the Trump administration still had plenty of time to present the laptop material to the Republican-controlled Senate and ask that they begin an independent investigation before the election.

Why did that not happen?

OMG
Congress is not going to take up an ongoing FBI investigation. Can you name one time where congress has done that?
You don't know the purpose of the legislative branch?
I'm still waiting for that half dozen arguments.

 

[Outlook]

How many people had access to the laptop between the time Hunter allegedly dropped off the laptop and the FBI picked up the laptop? According to the story, the FBI has been in possession of the laptop for over two years. Where are the charges?

Be patient.
How long has Durham been investigating?
How long was Mueller.
Haven't you read what I said? He is in a protective class.
Step back and think about it. What are the ramifications if Hunter, the son of the president is charged of a crime in which Joe may or may not be involved?

 

[JMB802]

OMG
Congress is not going to take up an ongoing FBI investigation. Can you name one time where congress has done that?
You don't know the purpose of the legislative branch?
I'm still waiting for that half dozen arguments.

Again, if the laptop material shows that Joe is guilty of crimes ...

We have been told in DP that the investigation was stalled because of covid. Trump hated the FBI, do you really think he would have had any qualms about stepping on their toes? So, why didn't Trump ask his allies in the Senate to do an investigation during the summer of 2020?

Why didn't Rudy go to a more respected conservative news outlet with the info with the laptop material?

Why didn't a more respected member of Trump's team take the lead in getting out the info?

Why did Tucker remain silent after he received the material?

Also, I have no idea why you are waiting for a half dozen arguments. I think you have me confused with someone else.

 

[less right]

And you can read?

"How will you prove that the evidence is not what the PROSECUTOR claims?"

You need to provide the evidence first. A bunch of hysterical claims don't need rebuttal.

 

[code1211]

I researched this before I asked the question. Your first comment about the poll is dishonest and the follow-up comment is dishonest as well. I'm not going to waste my time getting in a silly pissing match with you. Have a lovely day.

Dismissive and close minded.

Your choice.

 

[less right]

Dismissive and close minded.

Your choice.

You get so excited English becomes a second language in your posts.

Choices are separated by "or" not "and".

 

[code1211]

I should prove it , if I disagree? My mama taught me to never bother proving a negative, it doesn't make sense.

You wrote that the "only POSSIBLE conclusion is"..... That is a sure way to get yourself in trouble, and we've discussed that before . It would be more accurate to say 'I can't imagine any other conclusion' .

We are at an impasse in this discussion. I see no reason to beleive that they signed that letter to intentionally mislead the public. You are certain that they did.

These lying butt holes assertively claimed that a lie with which they had no knowledge, and could not have had any knowledge, was truth.

That lie has now been shown to be a lie. Anyone with with even the least amount of critical intelligence knew AT THE TIME, that these lying butt holes were lying.

At this point, even idiots must realize it.

Those who STILL don't realize the obvious facts of this? It's difficult to a point of impossibility to estimate their level of stupidity or indoctrination or, perhaps, their indoctrinated stupidity.

 

[code1211]

This seems unfair. What lies did they tell?

They claimed that Russia was responsible for the lap top and its contents and the entire story was a conspiracy of Russian disinformation pushed by Trump because he was a Putin sympathizer.

Did you really not know this?

 

[code1211]

The letter is attached below, please note the paragraph:
"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney 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."

They go on to elaborate what led them to this supposition.

Another note of interest to our esteemed collegues :

“U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence."

It's very signifcant that they clearly state they do not have proof. That means they are not claiming a fact, they are stating an informed assessment to the best of their ability.
That kind of a statement is not claiming a fact, and cannot be a lie, the same way an opinion doesn't count as a lie.

If they had no proof of anything regarding this, why did they sign the letter?

I'll tell you why: They are lying butt holes.