Wow. Democrats, your side is really dirty.

[RaleBulgarian]

Yeah. You asked for a law that may apply and seeing as how you sounded clueless, I obliged.

Wrong, and you are the one who has been “clueless”.

I didn’t ask for “a law”, I said “If you are going to come down on the “it was illegal” side, you’re going to have to explain why and cite the law/s you think were broken”.

You responded to my post directed to another member by posting part of a law, and didn’t (or couldn’t) explain what Biden action crossed any legal line.

I also said several times" Abuse of power and using public office for various relatives' benefit may not always be illegal.

You did, after very clearly implying that Biden, and/or members of his family, have committed crimes. An implication with no support.

No, opinions aren’t support. Specific, verifiable actions are.

But it’d be a good thing to get it all made public ... right?”
That should be clear enough for you and you still haven't answered what I asked. Should the public be made aware of it all?

A separate, and valid, point. Yes, of course the public should be informed. More importantly, the public has their own obligation to seek information.

One fact regarding all politicians; they lie. Some far more than others (all parties), but still a fact across the board.

I said more than once that it doesn't have to be illegal, ...

Noted.

... but whether it's illegal or simply very tawdry why would Joe feel the urgency to deny ever talking to Hunter about his dealings with China and Ukraine given he ferried his relatives around the world on AF2 so they could make deals where Joe went.

The underlined above comments are what is called unsubstantiated opinions/beliefs.

Unless you believe Joe was surprised his son and his brother were on AF2 with him and never talked to them there. Is that what you believe?

It’s more likely than not, that Biden did speak with relatives when they were hitching a ride on AF2. Assuming subjects those conversations included is more unsubstantiated opinion/belief.

Even your own cited Politico article repeatedly made clear Joe Biden’s long history of deliberately staying clear of any possible entanglements with ethics violations.

To be clear, I personally do believe it is very highly unlikely that, if for no other reason than Biden’s habit of making gaffes, he probably has shared information with relatives that they then could’ve taken advantage of for themselves.

Unlike some other folks in this forum, I actually do care more about facts than political bias.

Good. Subpart B and C applies to the President and Vice President. Fine by me. That's what I already said.

Yeah, I said the same thing too. The difference between us on that is I knew what is included in Subpart B and C, and you didn’t.

 

[bubbabgone]

Wrong, and you are the one who has been “clueless”.

I didn’t ask for “a law”, I said “If you are going to come down on the “it was illegal” side, you’re going to have to explain why and cite the law/s you think were broken”.

You responded to my post directed to another member by posting part of a law, and didn’t (or couldn’t) explain what Biden action crossed any legal line.

You did, after very clearly implying that Biden, and/or members of his family, have committed crimes. An implication with no support.

No, opinions aren’t support. Specific, verifiable actions are.

A separate, and valid, point. Yes, of course the public should be informed. More importantly, the public has their own obligation to seek information.

One fact regarding all politicians; they lie. Some far more than others (all parties), but still a fact across the board.

Noted.

The underlined above comments are what is called unsubstantiated opinions/beliefs.

It’s more likely than not, that Biden did speak with relatives when they were hitching a ride on AF2. Assuming subjects those conversations included is more unsubstantiated opinion/belief.

Even your own cited Politico article repeatedly made clear Joe Biden’s long history of deliberately staying clear of any possible entanglements with ethics violations.

To be clear, I personally do believe it is very highly unlikely that, if for no other reason than Biden’s habit of making gaffes, he probably has shared information with relatives that they then could’ve taken advantage of for themselves.

Unlike some other folks in this forum, I actually do care more about facts than political bias.

Yeah, I said the same thing too. The difference between us on that is I knew what is included in Subpart B and C, and you didn’t.

There are laws ... and when one might have been broken that's what's called illegal. Simple concept.

I also said we don't really know if any laws were broken until we have more details. Remember?
Not to make your future posts sound even more frantic, but not all crimes are prosecuted. That depends a lot of who committed them. But it's still illegal.

Yes. The pubic has an obligation to inform itself.
I pointed you to a couple of books for details on the Biden family activities. Have you read them yet?
The public tends not to seriously inform itself and so they depend on typical news sources to do that for them.
Unfortunately these days those sources tend to be as reliably honest as those politicians you've said are liars.

Not unsubstantiated. Reported.

That would mean Biden lied to the public about never speaking to Hunter about what he does. Lying to the public is certainly not a crime.
But has he ever admitted his family hitched rides on AF2 and then happened to come away with foreign "arrangements" for themselves?
It would be interesting if that came up at the debates, no?

If you look back over the posts you'd see that I did know about B & C . "... if we knew any details, B & C certainly could apply " Remember?

 

[HenryChinaski]

But oh, 'The Deep State Doesn't Exist' . . . right?

Geez. Yeah, right. There is a 'Deep State', and the evidence of it operating is finally, finally, coming out.
With a little luck, may have some well deserved indictments of high level Obama administration officials yet before the election.

You leftist guys sure got suckered by the Democrats, didn't you?
Bought the whole 'Russian Collusion' hoax, and every hoax since before the election results were announced that the media political propagandists fed you.
Didn't turn out to be anything based in reality, was it?

So why should anyone ever believe anything any of these people say anymore?
The Democrats, their political propaganda arm laughing called'news' media, or any of you here in these forums support them?

This shit cracks me up. I laughed with jocular hilarity when Steve Bannon said that "the deep state conspiracy was for nut cases" That Deep state nonsense is fed to the slaves to keep them busy and confused.

 

[eohrnberger]

This shit cracks me up. I laughed with jocular hilarity when Steve Bannon said that "the deep state conspiracy was for nut cases" That Deep state nonsense is fed to the slaves to keep them busy and confused.

It cracks me up how many times the Democrats and the leftist media have their followers running the same old tired hoax circle, only to end up with a great big NothingBurger.
You'd think they'd learn from experience at some point.

If you don't like the 'Deep State' label, you are free to choose another, but it must apply to bureaucrats purposefully sabotaging a legally and legitimately elected president and his administration and their efforts in governing.

 

[ultmd]

The information the Feds released yesterday was a bombshell. The texts between FBI agents reveal they knew the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was illegal and they feared it would be exposed and went out and purchased liability insurance.
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com...iability-insurance-over-russia-investigation/
AG Barr released a letter to the Senate Judiciary declassifying a footnote in the IG report that revealed the FBI knew the main source for the Dossier that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for, was a Russian spy and that the Dossier was crap but hid all of that information from the FISC using the Dossier to obtain a warrant and renewals to spy on Carter Page that allowed them to spy on the Trump campaign. James Comey signed all but one of those applications presented to the FISC.

As far as Durham's investigation we also learned yesterday that Durham has expanded his investigation into how the FBI conducted their investigation into the Clinton Foundation. It first started out with Durham investigating Crossfire Hurricane. Then last October we learned that the Mueller investigation was also being looked at . Now the investigation has expanded to conduct of the FBI in their handling of the Clinton Foundation investigation. The thing these three have in common are the same bad actors were involved in all of them.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ion-investigation/ar-BB19ooUG?ocid=uxbndlbing

Law Enforcement Today? Seriously???

• Overall, we rate Law Enforcement Today far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that align with the conservative right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor sources, lack of transparency, and failed fact checks.

Why do you people always post right-wing op/ed pieces as your "news", "evidence" and "facts"?

That article in Law Enforcement Today is nothing but an op/ed riddled with baseless opinions, lies and old, unsupported right-wing talking points.

So, let's be clear....

• -there have been no "bombshells" uncovered, except for those that confirmed the corruption of the Trump administration.
• -nothing "explosive" has been disclosed by the Durham investigation...and nothing ever will be.
• -From it's initial disclosure, until this very day, virtually NOTHING in the Steele Dossier has been refuted or discredited. Based upon all that we know, thus far, the Steele Dossier has only been VALIDATED, not discredited. And anyone who argues otherwise is likely either a fool, or just a liar. And a conspiracy theorist.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

There are laws ... and when one might have been broken that's what's called illegal. Simple concept.

I also said we don't really know if any laws were broken until we have more details. Remember?
Not to make your future posts sound even more frantic, but not all crimes are prosecuted. That depends a lot of who committed them. But it's still illegal.

Yes. The pubic has an obligation to inform itself.
I pointed you to a couple of books for details on the Biden family activities. Have you read them yet?
The public tends not to seriously inform itself and so they depend on typical news sources to do that for them.
Unfortunately these days those sources tend to be as reliably honest as those politicians you've said are liars.

Not unsubstantiated. Reported.

That would mean Biden lied to the public about never speaking to Hunter about what he does. Lying to the public is certainly not a crime.
But has he ever admitted his family hitched rides on AF2 and then happened to come away with foreign "arrangements" for themselves?
It would be interesting if that came up at the debates, no?

If you look back over the posts you'd see that I did know about B & C . "... if we knew any details, B & C certainly could apply " Remember?

Why do you continue sidestepping the fact that your first post entering this conversation began by unambiguously implying that Biden has committed crime/s?

Hell, you even included an incomplete reference to the law you apparently assumed he’s violated, further proving your ignorance. Good thing for you that I was kind enough to give you the information you missed (again, you’re welcome).

And no, I have no intention to read the books you referenced. Biased based political fiction does not interest me.

If I want facts, there a number of other reliable and verifiable sources to be utilized, and I routinely do.

And your candidate has far, far more reason to be concerned about ethics violations being brought up during debates.

 

[bubbabgone]

Why do you continue sidestepping the fact that your first post entering this conversation began by unambiguously implying that Biden has committed crime/s?

Hell, you even included an incomplete reference to the law you apparently assumed he’s violated, further proving your ignorance. Good thing for you that I was kind enough to give you the information you missed (again, you’re welcome).

And no, I have no intention to read the books you referenced. Biased based political fiction does not interest me.

If I want facts, there a number of other reliable and verifiable sources to be utilized, and I routinely do.

And your candidate has far, far more reason to be concerned about ethics violations being brought up during debates.

You asked for a Law and I gave you a Law because you didn't know of one.
You should be grateful I'm giving you the attention you crave.

Now you think you know what's in books you haven't read. That certainly explains your defensiveness on the subject.

If I want facts, there a number of other reliable and verifiable sources to be utilized, and I routinely do.

What reliable and verifiable sources told you Joe Biden never helped his family members enrich themselves using his name & position?
This should be good.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

No response from Trump's followers. That is what I expected. Trump's followers pretty much ignore what Trump says and does. They like to talk about Democrats.

In his own words Trump has admitted lying to the American people about the pandemic. In his own words Trump admits he is still lying to the American people. He says he doesn't want Americans to panic.

Americans don't panic. We solve the crisis, proven over and over again in our history.

Trump didn't know that.

As the impending threat of a pandemic was descending on America in January, February, and March, Trump was telling us, “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.”

Or, the pandemic is “fading away. It’s going to fade away.”

And, “99% of COVID-19 cases are totally harmless.”

As a consequence, on his watch, the U.S. has 20% of the world's virus cases and 20% of the world's deaths caused by the virus. Over 209,500 Americans have died from the virus. United States Coronavirus: 7,331,020 Cases and 209,556 Deaths - Worldometer

As a consequence of that inescapable fact, because of his false optimism and habitual fantasies, because of his inability to react for three months when the virus threatened, because he refuses to accept bad news, Trump has run the greatest economy the world has ever known into the ground. The US economy shrank by an annualized 32.9 percent in the second quarter of 2020. It is the biggest contraction ever, pushing the economy into a recession. Thirty million Americans are unemployed, and the American people are challenged by both a pandemic and severe recession.

What has been Trump's response to all of this? He has sidelined his leading epidemiologists, Drs. Fauci, Birx, Redfield, and Hahn in favor of Fox News contributor, Dr. Scott Atlas, a radiologist, not an expert on epidemiology.

Atlas's views coincide with Trump's and directly conflict with the leading experts in the field, the field of epidemics, not radiology, the latter field being inconsequential at the moment.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Trump's business philosophy can be summed up in a few words. "Anyone who pays income taxes is a sucker."

Through their silence and acquiescence even Trump's followers know Trump is a loser, an incompetent, narcissistic, foolish President who has done a great deal of harm. He has failed on the foreign front, and the U.S. is now isolated, bereft of allies we once had. His failures on the domestic front are highlighted by a failed economy, disastrous mishandling of the pandemic, and over 209,500 dead Americans from the virus he allowed to flourish.

Trump paid $750 in taxes in 2016 and again in 2017. He avoided paying any tax for ten years. Trump didn't pay income tax for 10 of 15 years before 2016 election: NYT

No doubt many of Trump's followers paid at least ten times that in 2016, and again in 2017, but they will cheer Trump for paying so little as President.

Of course, when Trump becomes a private citizen on January 21, he may suffer the same fate as many of his close associates -- jail time.

And, of course, that will be okay with the Trump Cult as well. Whey one reveres someone like Trump is revered within the Cult -- for reasons that defy all logic -- then one doesn't worry about petty things like lying, breaking our laws, monumental failures causing death and economic recession, and sexual promiscuity.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You asked for a Law ...

No, I didn’t. You know it, too.

Why’re you lying?

... because you didn't know of one.

Another lie on your part.

I challenged another poster to support his allegations, and like you (posting a partial law as applied to the subject being debated) , he failed.

You should be grateful I'm giving you the attention you crave.

As much as you lie, you should should be grateful anyone responds to you at all.

Now you think you know what's in books you haven't read. That certainly explains your defensiveness on the subject.

The fact that you recommend them, and the titles (“Secret Empires - How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends", and “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite”) is enough to support my reasonable conclusion.

Are you asserting that the books you recommended aren’t written from a partisan perspective?

What reliable and verifiable sources told you Joe Biden never helped his family members enrich themselves using his name & position?

Suggesting that I believe Biden never violated any standards of conduct, or broke any laws, that helped his family members to “enrich themselves” after I said “To be clear, I personally do believe it is very highly unlikely that, if for no other reason than Biden’s habit of making gaffes, he probably has shared information with relatives that they then could’ve taken advantage of for themselves”?

Stupid amateur debating gaffes, and a demonstrated propensity for lying. Great ways to stay in favor with your fellow Trumpsters.

 

[vesper]

Law Enforcement Today? Seriously???

• Overall, we rate Law Enforcement Today far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that align with the conservative right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor sources, lack of transparency, and failed fact checks.

Why do you people always post right-wing op/ed pieces as your "news", "evidence" and "facts"?

That article in Law Enforcement Today is nothing but an op/ed riddled with baseless opinions, lies and old, unsupported right-wing talking points.

So, let's be clear....

• -there have been no "bombshells" uncovered, except for those that confirmed the corruption of the Trump administration.
• -nothing "explosive" has been disclosed by the Durham investigation...and nothing ever will be.
• -From it's initial disclosure, until this very day, virtually NOTHING in the Steele Dossier has been refuted or discredited. Based upon all that we know, thus far, the Steele Dossier has only been VALIDATED, not discredited. And anyone who argues otherwise is likely either a fool, or just a liar. And a conspiracy theorist.

Why do you people blow off any opinions or articles that are not lock and step with your ideology? You do so at your own peril. I don't know where you are getting your news but you are one of the most uniformed people I have come across on this forum. "So let's be clear" , ignorance is not bliss.

 

[bubbabgone]

No, I didn’t. You know it, too.

Why’re you lying?

Another lie on your part.

I challenged another poster to support his allegations, and like you (posting a partial law as applied to the subject being debated) , he failed.


As much as you lie, you should should be grateful anyone responds to you at all.


The fact that you recommend them, and the titles (“Secret Empires - How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends", and “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite”) is enough to support my reasonable conclusion.

Are you asserting that the books you recommended aren’t written from a partisan perspective?

Suggesting that I believe Biden never violated any standards of conduct, or broke any laws, that helped his family members to “enrich themselves” after I said “To be clear, I personally do believe it is very highly unlikely that, if for no other reason than Biden’s habit of making gaffes, he probably has shared information with relatives that they then could’ve taken advantage of for themselves”?

Stupid amateur debating gaffes, and a demonstrated propensity for lying. Great ways to stay in favor with your fellow Trumpsters.

Sure you did. You asked for a Law and I gave you one.

Since I actually read one of them and know what's in it, yeah, I can attest that it wasn't "written from a partisan perspective". Something you can't do to support your claim.

Good. That's true. You said that. But that 's nooooooot exactly what I said, is it.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Sure you did. You asked for a Law and I gave you one.

Pathetic, but typical, that you aren’t capable of admitting your failing.

Since I actually read o
ne of them and know what's in it, yeah, I can attest that it wasn't "written from a partisan perspective".

Of course you don’t recognize your own partisan bias. That is clear from your denials in this thread.

Something you can't do to support your claim.

I don’t need to stare up at the sun to know it’s there either.

Good. That's true. You said that. But that 's nooooooot exactly what I said, is it.

I said you “suggested” it, not that you outright said it.

Please try to pay better attention.

 

[ultmd]

Why do you people blow off any opinions or articles that are not lock and step with your ideology?

Why do you people post OPINION pieces as "news" and expect intelligent people to accept the contents as "the facts", or even an objective reflection of the facts?

In this case, the OP is based upon an OPINION piece from a well-known, FAR-RIGHT fake-news source that is known for publishing misleading stories and/or omitting FACTS in favor of fake-news and conspiracy theories. That is EXTREMELY relevant when the subject of the op/ed is supposedly another "bombshell" revelation that the REAL news organizations have not reported.

You do so at your own peril.

Your attempted self-flattery is duly noted. But I'm good. I'm in no peril here, at all.

I don't know where you are getting your news but you are one of the most uniformed people I have come across on this forum.

Now THIS is funny! Of course, you and I both know you can't back that up, don't we? Everything I've said in this thread is really non-controversial. The op/ed in question (in the OP) is dishonest and/or misleading. There are no new "bombshells". There have been no significant findings from the Durham investigation...and there never will be. And, to date, virtually everything in the Steele Dossier that has been investigated and/or resolved, as been corroborated. So you must be carrying some sort of grudge from some previous thread in which you felt slighted, I guess.

I don't even know who you are, Vesper. But if you EVER want to question me about my views, my arguments or an recitation of facts I my offer....PLEASE do not hesitate to engage. I do not expect to see you take me up on that offer, but I encourage you to do it, nonetheless.

 

[bubbabgone]

Pathetic, but typical, that you aren’t capable of admitting your failing.

Of course you don’t recognize your own partisan bias. That is clear from your denials in this thread.

I don’t need to stare up at the sun to know it’s there either.
View attachment 67297187

I said you “suggested” it, not that you outright said it.

Please try to pay better attention.

I'll try.
But your analogies suck.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'll try.

Doubtful, but thanks for the tepid promise.

But your analogies suck.

Disagree.