WSJ debunks O-3 Bobulinski

[NatMorton]

Potentially he ran over a small boy with his car too.

Let's see the evidence. You do know how these things work, yes? The FBI has had this almost the entire year. Trump is so inept that he can't get his FBI to recommend these "Bribery" charges?

I'm not the custodian of the evidence in question, so you'll need to check elsewhere. Like you, I can only go on the facts as they're presented to us from authorities and the media. The three 2015-matter facts that I can't get past are these:

1. The Bidens will not say clearly and unequivocally that these emails are fake.
   
   
2. In one of those emails a Burisma executive thanks Hunter for a meeting with his father, the then VP of the US.
   
   
3. That same year, Joe Biden involved himself in a foreign power's investigation of Burisma despite having a clear conflict of interest (the target of the investigation owned a company that was paying Hunter Biden $50k/month for a job he was manifestly unqualified for).

Until these facts are proven false or missing context is provided, there's a concern here and, IMO, one warranting further investigation.

 

[rahl]

Re 2017, see post #490, and the worst feasible interpretation of the 2015 emails is that the Bidens (plural) were enriching themselves by selling access to the sitting Vice President of the United States.

which is a silly claim, with zero evidence to support it.

If proven and you don't see that as a crime, there's not much point in further discussion.

we know it isn't a crime, even if it happened, because if it were, you'd be calling for trump, Obama, bush, Clinton and every other president in the past 60 years to be arrested.

 

[NatMorton]

That is a crime. Yet you have no indictment. Why?

I don't do indictments; not my profession.

We had no indictments of Trump, either. Did you support the 2016 and 2019 investigations against him?

 

[tres borrachos]

I'm not the custodian of the evidence in question, so you'll need to check elsewhere. Like you, I can only go on the facts as they're presented to us from authorities and the media. The three 2015-matter facts that I can't get past are these:

1. The Bidens will not say clearly and unequivocally that these emails are fake.
   
   
2. In one of those emails a Burisma executive thanks Hunter for a meeting with his father, the then VP of the US.
   
   
3. That same year, Joe Biden involved himself in a foreign power's investigation of Burisma despite having a clear conflict of interest (the target of the investigation owned a company that was paying Hunter Biden $50k/month for a job he was manifestly unqualified for).

Until these facts are proven false or missing context is provided, there's a concern here and, IMO, one warranting further investigation.

So you know nothing. Got it.

You can't prove facts to be false, as the smart people know.

 

[NatMorton]

Just think. What would they do if they didnt see a crime on the computer?


Exactly what they did

I wasn't aware the FBI had closed their investigation. Have a cite for that?

 

[tres borrachos]

I don't do indictments; not my profession.

We had no indictments of Trump, either. Did you support the 2016 and 2019 investigations against him?

Trump was indicted by Congress. That's what the impeachment was all about. Why do you struggle with the truth?

 

[NatMorton]

which is a silly claim, with zero evidence to support it.

we know it isn't a crime, even if it happened, because if it were, you'd be calling for trump, Obama, bush, Clinton and every other president in the past 60 years to be arrested.

Have a nice day.

 

[NatMorton]

So you know nothing. Got it.

You can't prove facts to be false, as the smart people know.

I don't think you're very familiar with how investigations often go. Things are often presented -- both with sincerity and good reason -- as fact and later proven to be false. It's also possible that a fact can be provided new context and thus indicate something entirely different.

Lastly, a tip: best focus on the quality of your own arguments and worry less about how "smart" others are.

 

[RAMOSS]

Witness: Joe Biden Was “The Big Guy” [Updated]

A former business partner to Hunter Biden, Tony Bobulinski, has made a bombshell statement that not only are the emails on the Biden laptop authentic but the reference to giving a cut to “the…

jonathanturley.org

Someone connected to the business affairs confirmed the references in the emails on Hunter’s laptop. It’s an allegation but you can’t disprove it. It’s what you call firsthand testimony.

I can certianly point out that you can't prove it either, because 1) It's ambiouous, 2) other people refute what Bobulinsky claims, 3)He has finanical problems due to the judgement against him 4) His showing up at the debate as Trump's guest shows he is not independent or impartial. So, basically, you are doign what is known as 'shifting the burden of proof', typical of people who push conspiracy theories.

 

[NatMorton]

Trump was indicted by Congress. That's what the impeachment was all about. Why do you struggle with the truth?

I don't, but we're not talking about what happened after the investigation. We're talking about whether an investigation is warranted. At the start of the call for impeachment hearings on Trump, we had less hard evidence than we do right now against Joe Biden.

Second tip: don't confuse you're inability to understand what someone is saying with a lack of honesty on their part.

 

[tres borrachos]

I don't think you're very familiar with how investigations often go. Things are often presented -- both with sincerity and good reason -- as fact and later proven to be false. It's also possible that a fact can be provided new context and thus indicate something entirely different.

Lastly, a tip: best focus on the quality of your own arguments and worry less about how "smart" others are.

You can't prove a fact wrong. This is complicated for you, isn't it?

You can orgasm for the next week about this. It isn't going to save Trump. Nobody except the drooling Trump Fans believe this.

 

[NatMorton]

You can't prove a fact wrong. This is complicated for you, isn't it?

You can orgasm for the next week about this. It isn't going to save Trump. Nobody except the drooling Trump Fans believe this.

You're presumptuous, I'll give you that.

I've never made any claim about this affecting the results of next week's election, and if you're really after what "drooling Trump fans believe," perhaps you should go speak with one.

 

[rahl]

Have a nice day.

you too. The fact remains, you can not name a crime what was committed by biden. Sorry.

 

[Excon]

Hmmm..... already falling apart...


The venture with CEFC, known as SinoHawk Holdings, was half held by Mr. Bobulinski, who served as chief executive, and four other partners—Hunter and James Biden; Rob Walker, a former Clinton administration official; and James Gilliar, a British national—according to the corporate documents reviewed by the Journal.

Text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture.

Mr. Gilliar told the Journal: “I would like to clear up any speculation that former Vice President Biden was involved with the 2017 discussions about our potential business structure. I am unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former Vice President. The activity in question never delivered any project revenue.”

Hunter Biden’s Ex-Business Partner Alleges Father Knew About Venture

An ex-business partner of Hunter Biden said he consulted his father about a planned venture with a Chinese oil company. Joe Biden denied any involvement in the venture and corporate records reviewed by The Journal show no role for him.

www.wsj.com

Not at all.
You do realize that Mr. Gilliar being unaware does not mean that basement Biden was not aware like Mr. Bobulinski alleges, right?

 

[BlueTex]

Not at all.
You do realize that Mr. Gilliar being unaware does not mean that basement Biden was not aware like Mr. Bobulinski alleges, right?

For the sake of argument lets take Bobulinski at his word. What crime would have been committed?

 

[tres borrachos]

You're presumptuous, I'll give you that.

I've never made any claim about this affecting the results of next week's election, and if you're really after what "drooling Trump fans believe," perhaps you should go speak with one.

So you're just crying for no reason. Got it.

 

[Excon]

For the sake of argument lets take Bobulinski at his word. What crime would have been committed?

Who said a crime was committed?

As far as I am concerned, it is basement Biden's denial that is the issue. It shows a deliberate attempt to cover up knowledge of inappropriate behavior.

 

[BlueTex]

Who said a crime was comitted?

As far as I am concerned, it is basement Bidens denial that is the issue, and shows a deliberate attempt to cover up knowledge of inappropriate influence.

What would be inappropriate about being a partner in a venture as a private citizen?

 

[Excon]

What would be inappropriate about being a partner in a venture as a private citizen?

I edited.
But you are ignoring the main point that basement Biden had knowldege and denied it.

 

[BlueTex]

I edited.
But you are ignoring the main point that basement Biden had knowldege and denied it.

Lied to who?

 

[Excon]

Lied to who?

Seriously? Are you really unaware the basement Biden denied having discussed his son's business dealings?

 

[BlueTex]

Seriously? Are you really unaware the basement Biden denied having discussed his son's business dealings?

Should we put both under oath?

 

[tres borrachos]

Yea, but you still haven't explained what Joe (The Big Guy) did to earn a 10% stake held by his son Hunter. Especially when Joe claims he never spoke to Hunter about his business dealings.

Why did he have to "do" anything? It's his son. It isn't your business why his son shares his money with him unless you can prove a crime was committed - and you haven't.

 

[tres borrachos]

Isn't conspiracy to committ a crime, a crime? IF money changed hands in any of the countries based on Joe Biden's influence or the peddling of his influence by his son, that's a crime. Partners in the crime would probably not admit to it.

How did China bribe Trump to give his Princess trademarks when nobody else can get them?

 

[Excon]

Should we put both under oath?

Did I suggest such?
Or perhaps did I state that one person being unaware of something does not mean that the other person was unaware?