Nope, didn't evade, it's your memory and comprehension problem, not mine.

"This has nothing to do with the election"

Is your original statement I responded to. Now you are switching it to "how is it connected to the Biden campaign."

Those are two different things. I evaded nothing. It has nothing to do with the Biden campaign, this all happened way before any Biden for President campaign.

If you think that supposed emails in the hand of the the former VP's son getting funny money from China and sharing it with his dad isn't going to sway some voters, keep kidding yourself on that is all I have to say.

I heard you same people blame Comey for exonerating Clinton a few days before the election for Trump's win 4 years ago. You think they aren't going to drip this Biden stuff? You think this has nothing to do with the election?

Or do you realize your snark about me "evading" was misplaced because you can't remember what you said?

We get it, you're mad. Trying to slander the owner of the shop isn't going to get you anywhere.

I find it funny when people ask why the guy we have pictures of who fell asleep with a meth pipe in his mouth never went and got his laptop.

Oh no, don't say "if" it's fabricated, you're supposed to be a good little soldier and say it definitely is fabricated........or hacked.

You clearly don't understand the China aspect of the theory.

What has Russia said about wanting Trump to win? You got a cite for that? I'd like to see it.

Well they guy is FROM Delaware, and his dad lives in Delaware. So it's not "for some reason" it's for pretty good reasons. I could understand this line if the computer guy was in...........Waxahatchee. As it is, acting like it's so unreasonable for Hunter Biden to be in Delaware is kind of silly.

How long do you think it would take the FBI to find out if Hunter B was in Delaware when the computer was left at the shop? I'd say just long enough to access his credit card records for around that time. Or telephone records.

ETA: I'm not saying it's unreasonable. I'm saying he could have gone back for some reason. You're assuming I think it's unreasonable.

There is no chain of evidence issue. The FBI came and took the original hard drive. Making mirrors of a hard drive is in no way tampering.

I don't think it would take them 30 minutes to find out if Biden was in Delaware at the given time/date.

we get it - staying civil is hard.

Well, friends can only do that much. At least Moscow is trying its best in difficult circumstances - and if all else fails there will be a nice dacha by the Black Sea in the ancient Russian province of Crimea.

China may want Biden to win because he possibly maybe took some funny Chinese money though his son?

Still waiting on your cite for "Russia has been quite clear in both word and action that they prefer Trump to win" especially the "word" part.

Uh-huh. Sure. Keep swinging at those pitches.

And I think it's funny that you assume he was high on meth or anything else when he dropped off the computer.

Why don't we just wait and see what the FBI has to say? You might not be such a wise ass then.

Why don't you mansplain it to little ole me then?

I don't think Vladimir has changed his mind. He hasn't said so:

Keep butting into people having a discussion when you obviously have nothing to add.

1. Point to me saying he was high on meth when he brought his computer in.

2. Umm I already said this is way too early to evaluate if the emails are legit, let alone if it was Biden who dropped it off.

3. So you mean Russia hasn't said in words they want Trump 2020? You just made that up?

4. I posted the wacky China video if you are that interested. I'm sure you aren't.

It's no secret that Russia is still intefering...well..to anyone but TBS, apparently:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/17/polit...nce/index.html

Yes, Russia is the boogeyman, lol.

Yes, of course they are. That 2016 effort was the best investment of roubles ever - the West has been shaken ja weakened from inside. The USA is divided and chaotic and has lost enormous amount of soft power and prestige. The Kremlin will do their very best to get their man re-elected and even with a loss there is the delicious prospect of challenges to the result and further undermining of democracy. Maybe even violent clashes on the streets. Russian dream come true.

1. You implied it. And before you deny that, explain what other reason you
would have for saying it otherwise.

2. That wasn't the point of your snarky reply to me but nice try.

3. I didn't say it was in 2020. But Putin said it quite clearly on July 16, 2018.
Just a bit over two years ago. So no, I didn't make it up.

4. It was wacky. But I prefer you mansplain it to me. Do you
understand it? Or are you just repeating the Trump talking points like 'a
good little soldier'?

Ah. That tells me so much more than anything else you've written. And confirms what I already suspected from reading the Flynn thread. I won't be wasting my time with you any longer.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...aaa23348da.jpg

Stands to reason, given that it's likely Russian disinformation, being propagated at a time when it's known the Russians are propagating disinformation about Biden, spread by someone dishonest with open connections to known Russian intelligence agents, who has previously disseminated Russian disinformation. Just last year the US intelligence agencies warned the White House that Giuliani was peddling Russian disinformation.

Who cares what the actual claims are? They're almost certainly ********. The provenance of the claims is much more interesting.

*Shrugs*. That question wasn't directed to you; someone else said this would be easy for the campaign to disprove. I wondered why that poster specified that proof should come from the "campaign" vs. Hunter or Joe Biden. They didn't answer. You expressed surprise that I would ask that question, but then would not say why you were surprised. Now I see the game you're playing: It's not related to the campaign per se but is still related to the election. The timing certainly supports that interpretation.

Maybe in future you could let others answer for themselves? It could save a lot of pointless semantic confusion, but then again, pointless semantic confusion may be what you're going for.


Yes, but the poster I was addressing seemed to think the campaign itself should be offering proof even though the campaign did not exist at the time of the alleged scandal.

OK. So do you agree that it is up to the campaign itself to disprove the narrative, even though the campaign didn't exist at the time? And no, I don't think this is going to sway a meaningful number of voters. IMO there's a reason this weird leaked laptop story was not fast-tracked for FBI investigation: Because it's ridiculous. Here's a hard drive, trust me, it's been sitting in my shop and I've already cloned it 4 times so you guys can have it. It's Hunter Biden's, even though I can't testify that it's really Hunter Biden's, but that was my impression which is good enough, right? Also, I don't remember whether I called the FBI or they called me. It was all so long ago ...

You don't know jack about what I said 4 years ago re: Comey's surprise discovery of HRC emails on a laptop of questionable provenance and his co-called "exoneration" a few days later. It's uncanny how Trump et al. come back with ... surprise discoveries of Hunter Biden emails on a laptop of questionable provenance.

"They" (and who is "they"?) may well drip "this Biden stuff" but gut feeling, it's not going to change anyone's mind because the Trump spawn themselves are openly involved in their own questionable deals peddling access to Daddy. Grown adults trying to cash in on Daddy's influence isn't necessarily a huge scandal. Besides which, I wouldn't be surprised if the Hunter Biden stuff turns out to be a few authentic emails larded with purported scandals that are completely made up. There's a reason the FBI didn't jump all over this stuff. I mean, Trump has been trying to use his presidential power right and left to chase political enemies and he keeps coming up empty. I don't think this one will bear much fruit either. Fox calling it a bombshell does not a bombshell make. But, as always, I could be wrong.

See above. You never answered my question, which was (paraphrase), "Why should it up to the campaign to rebut these allegations?" But that's OK; I never really expected a straight answer to begin with. Meanwhile I think you should be happy, because your tactics are pretty decent, depending of course on your goal, which I think is to get earnest people like myself deeply enmeshed and wasting energy trying to get you to see reason. Certainly I've fallen for it.

I heard it described as if the Watergate tapes were found a year later in the pocket of a jacket that someone had dropped off at a dry-cleaners and then didn't return to collect, and that it was assumed that the jacket belonged to Nixon because it had a Nixon pin on the lapel.

Where exactly are the hard drives with the proof that they were from Hunter Biden’s computer? Who has read off the alleged Hunter files on it? Where are the the files from it now? What exactly do they say?

You’ve been asked these same same questions upthread multiple without adequately responding. Whereas the alien abduction stories have actual photos of the abducted people, people willing to provide their real names! Some photos have images of clawed aliens in them! They have named names, not referred vaguely “the Big Guy.” There is no comparison in terms of actual documentation!

Who took the photo of Hunter with the crack pipe?

this is what happens when you take Rudy Giuliani seriously

I'm assuming you mean me? Saying that it "should be easy for the campaign to disprove" is a completely different claim to saying that the campaign should disprove it. It's clearly their choice. I think I said before, they could be waiting for a more strategic moment to disprove this.

What? Biden's campaign want Biden to win. If people are claiming there are emails proving wrong doing of their candidate, but those emails are fabricated... it seems like they might have some interest in proving it. They don't have to, obviously. Are we thinking that Hunter Biden won't cooperate with them in proving the emails are faked?

This idea that it isn't the campaign's job to respond to accusations of things their candidate did, or is accused of doing, prior to the campaign is insane. Aren't most negative stories about the ethics of candidates about things they did prior to the start of the campaign? If the Trump campaign respond to a claim about Trump's tax returns, it's not because the campaign were involved in the tax returns, it's because it's a negative story about their candidate.

Epstein

Oh whatever. I quoted you verbatim up thread, if you didn't want to answer you didn't have to. Instead you changed the quote to something you never said that I never asked about. Hell, you pushed the issue even after I quoted you and said never mind, that I didn't care.

You're right, it's not about the election at all, has nothing to do with it.

LOL, that's really funny.

It's 2020. Would you bet your house that it wasn't Epstein?

:-)

You'd have to ask Hunter, not sure how the hell you think I'm supposed to know that.

Well, I'm told by someone far smarter than me that this Russian disinformation would never sway any significant amount of votes. And of course "This has nothing to do with the election" so.....tough luck on getting an answer from the campaign Pal.

Promise?

"Likely" from "unnamed sources" gotcha.

Back to reading Seth Abramson again?

LOL, let me think about it.

Can you explain how to disprove a screenshot of an email that someone else wrote?

The strategy seems to be a two-step process. 1: Keep pushing a weird story about e-mails, never saying anything specifically damning, but using lots of buzzwords like "scandal" and "smoking gun." 2: Complain like hell when the mainstream media doesn't pick it up.

To my knowledge, only one person is falling for it.

I don't think you've given your proposal very much consideration. Allow me to illustrate. I am going to make a claim, and just so it's 100% clear, the following is not an accusation, but an attempt at establishing a principle:

3 years ago, I sent you (shuttlt) an e-mail thanking you for the very high quality heroin you sold me.

Please tell me how you would go about proving that the e-mail described above was never actually sent to you.

Have you tried facing away from the mirror?

Look, another one.

Sure. To begin with, I have access to my own email... so I would know 100% whether I had or hadn't received such an email and could give an unequivocal denial without fear of contradiction. That doesn't seem to be happening at the moment.

Then I'd say that it depends a bit on what is being refuted. If somebody is falsely claiming to have a copy of my emails, then I have a way to refute that because I have access to the genuine emails from the period which they won't have. If somebody does have a copy of my email, but has altered some message... then again, I have access to the originals and have a way to refute them. We have a third possibility, that they have access to my emails, but have added some additional emails to their copy. In that instance, it is trickier... I would expect Apple as well as the company who sent the email to have logs. Depending on what is being denied, I agree it is easier/harder. I'm not clear at this point what is being denied.

Don't we now have somebody related to the China emails confirming that they are genuine?

Given that the FBI have had this for months, hopefully what ever investigation is necessary to get to the bottom of it has already been done.

You might "know" but you can't prove you didn't get an email. How do you prove you didn't delete it?

Remember when Trump claimed Russia wanted Clinton to win the election? :rolleyes:

It is unreasonable. The story is fishier than a tin of sardines.

Trump lies don't need to be the least bit credible. He puts them out there then cries CT when they are discredited. And sadly people suck up the nonsense the same way they have latched onto Qanon which is as ludicrous as claiming lizard people are running the country.

I think it's up to Giuliani and Co. to prove they actually have the emails. It's not like the emails couldn't be authenticated by metadata.

Beat me to the punch. This raises the question: Why would Biden waste his time trying to satisfy the "Obama's birth certificate is fake" crowd?

1. Keeping e-mails indefinitely is not the common practice you are implying it is. Even my sister, who uses GMail (with virtually unlimited e-mail storage) and would never have an outsider interested in her communications, deletes every message as soon as she's dealt with the contents.
2. E-mail servers do not keep records indefinitely either.
3. AFAIK, most companies have data retention policies that include regularly purging old e-mails.
4. Apple wouldn't have records of e-mails at all unless you were using Apple as your service provider, an extremely uncommon situation.

Because this is the opposite. Biden isn't producing something called "fake" it's the other side producing something people here and elsewhere are calling "fake."

Well, the other side is actually NOT producing it, that's my problem with it.

I like how the best counter-argument you can offer is to quote-mine disparate parts of my post and pretend that the two quotes* are the entire content of the post and both refer to the same thing.

*Well, one isn't a quote, but is instead a disingenuous paraphrase of the article I quoted.