International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Bill Barr and his October Surprise (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346780)

Norman Alexander 20th October 2020 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13263416)
LOL, well if you don't know, I guess the conversation is over, thankfully. But no, the FBI does not share info of ongoing investigations with anyone, including the Senate.

Horse-flops.

Quote:

In that regard, I am happy to say that the spirit of collaboration and willingness to exchange data has never been stronger or more pronounced than it is today. Many of the legal and policy impediments that kept us from more fully exchanging information in the past have been or are now being changed. The USA Patriot Act (Pub. L. 107-56) has greatly improved our ability to exchange data with the intelligence community and across law enforcement. In addition, the Attorney General's recent directive to increase the coordination and sharing of information between the DOJ, the FBI, the INS, the USMS, and the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF) on terrorist matters and to establish secure means of working with state and local officials are major milestones in improving our information sharing and collaboration efforts. Equally important, the difficult technology challenges we all face are on the top of everyone's priority list. This is especially so at the FBI. Under Director Mueller's leadership, the FBI, on every front, is hard at work carrying out the Attorney General's information-sharing directive.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/ne...ng-initiatives

TahiniBinShawarma 20th October 2020 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 13263423)

1. Nowhere in there does it mention the Senate
2. It's referring to terrorism, not criminal investigations and sharing between investigative, military, and law enforcement.

Squeegee Beckenheim 20th October 2020 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13263061)
There is no evidence that what the repair man says happened, didn't.

It's funny that you'll dismiss the testimony of several anonymous sources in a reputable newspaper because they're unnamed, yet you seem prepared to take a single repair shop guy at his word, despite him also being unnamed and the conduit for his information (which matches a current Russian disinformation campaign) being noted-liar-who-has-openly-been-getting-information-from-an-active-Russian-intelligence-agent-and-who-the-US-intelligence-agencies-warned-the-White-House-was-likely-pushing-Russian-disinformation Rudy Giuliani, and also being unnamed.

It's almost like the actual credibility of the information isn't the primary consideration, and you're just making excuses to dismiss information you don't like and to amplify information you do.

Squeegee Beckenheim 20th October 2020 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13263340)
Even if they are real, they aren't really a smoking gun as far as showing corruption. It would be surprising if his contacts didn't try to get him to make introductions and use his influence. The question is whether or not those efforts bore any fruit and I don't think there is evidence that they did.

Even that wouldn't be a smoking gun. Say Biden did manage to get a meeting between one person and his dad - and that's the worst thing alleged here - how does that in any way compare to even a tiny fraction of the ways that Trump has used his power to enrich himself and his family? Jared Kushner, for example, passed classified information on to MBS who used that information to purge political enemies - arresting, and even torturing and murdering some.

So let's assume that absolutely everything about this story is true. If that's the worst dirt Biden has, then he's still infinitely less corrupt as a candidate than Trump.

The Don 20th October 2020 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13263463)
Even that wouldn't be a smoking gun. Say Biden did manage to get a meeting between one person and his dad - and that's the worst thing alleged here - how does that in any way compare to even a tiny fraction of the ways that Trump has used his power to enrich himself and his family? Jared Kushner, for example, passed classified information on to MBS who used that information to purge political enemies - arresting, and even torturing and murdering some.

So let's assume that absolutely everything about this story is true. If that's the worst dirt Biden has, then he's still infinitely less corrupt as a candidate than Trump.

Yes but sadly it doesn't work that way. Someone loosely connected to a Democratic Party jaywalking is exactly the same as a GOP candidate committing a felony.

Also, the ample evidence of President Trump and his Administration's misdeeds is a clear indication of his underlying honesty whereas the paucity of evidence of wrongdoing from Joe Biden is irrefutable proof of a huge Deep State cover up. :rolleyes:

Babbylonian 20th October 2020 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 13263465)
Yes but sadly it doesn't work that way. Someone loosely connected to a Democratic Party jaywalking is exactly the same as a GOP candidate committing a felony.

Also, the ample evidence of President Trump and his Administration's misdeeds is a clear indication of his underlying honesty whereas the paucity of evidence of wrongdoing from Joe Biden is irrefutable proof of a huge Deep State cover up. :rolleyes:

If Biden really had nothing to hide, he wouldn't hide it so well.

The Don 20th October 2020 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babbylonian (Post 13263475)
If Biden really had nothing to hide, he wouldn't hide it so well.

Exactly ;) :cool:

Segnosaur 20th October 2020 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13263382)
So, is that what determines the authenticity of the signature? FoxNews? lol



Get a grip, they provided the invoice, AND told you they didn't have an expert look at it.

YOU were the one who provided the link to Fox News when someone pointed out the lack of an invoice or other paperwork signed by Hunter Biden.

If fox news was publishing the document then it was their duty to verify it. If they didn't verify it then your reference is worthless and should not have been given.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

Segnosaur 20th October 2020 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey (Post 13263385)
They provided a piece of paper that they said had Biden's signature, with nothing to back that up. Again, the FBI didn't think the laptop was worthwhile so the crafters of this scam had to go searching for marks.

Did they even have access to the original? Or an electronic version or copy of the original (so they could verify if it was an actual signature and not Photoshop.)

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

Darat 20th October 2020 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babbylonian (Post 13263475)
If Biden really had nothing to hide, he wouldn't hide it so well.

It's not as if he doesn't have form, look how he hid Obama's birth certificate!

Tero 20th October 2020 04:53 AM

Very believable laptop:
-NY Post
-Daily mail
-Foxnews
-Bannon, Breitbart
“Hunter Biden’s lawyer has come to us both with phone calls and with emails saying, ‘Hey, I’ve got to get the hard drive back,’” Bannon told Sky News on Sunday.

timhau 20th October 2020 05:15 AM

But hey, we absolutely need to take Trump insiders for their word. Many of them haven't been sentenced yet.

Firestone 20th October 2020 05:52 AM

Is the Hunter Biden laptop shtick working?

A little apples and oranges, but still interesting.

The first New York Post front page on Hunter Biden's emails ran on October 14. Since then, Biden's lead in RCP average has moved from 9.2 points to 8.9 points.
In the same period (six days) after the Comey letter, Clinton's lead fell from 4.6 to 1.7 in the RCP average.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/statu...35724723994630

Trump needs DOJ action for this to have any real effect, imho.
And he knows it:
Quote:

Pres Trump calling on Atty Gen Barr to launch official investigation on corruption charges against Joe and Hunter Biden. “This is major corruption,” said Trump on @FoxNews, “and has to be known before the election.” “We’ve got to get the Atty Gen to act and act fast,” said Trump.

https://twitter.com/markknoller/stat...24996566831106
But then, him loudly calling for it quite dampens the effect.

jerrywayne 20th October 2020 06:07 AM

"More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son 'has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.'”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...disinfo-430276

jerrywayne 20th October 2020 06:15 AM

Sue the crap out of them:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...blicans-430247

Beelzebuddy 20th October 2020 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerrywayne (Post 13263606)
"More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son 'has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.'”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...disinfo-430276

Well then that will show President Obama!

jadebox 20th October 2020 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13263338)
And Hunter isn’t claiming they aren’t real. I wonder why.


Common practice in these operations is to load the bait files with plenty of genuine hacked/stolen documents, photos, etc., then salt them with some forgeries. This was the technique, for example, in Russia's election-eve onslaught against Macron: /1

This technique puts the target in a position where they cannot deny the genuineness of some of the materials (which might be proved by other means) but also must not seem to be conceding the genuineness of all the materials (which would tend to validate the salted forgeries). /2

All things to keep in mind when someone demands to know why Biden hasn't declared the emails illegitimate. The method of the operation might be to place him in just such a position. /3, efn

https://twitter.com/walterolson/stat...196722177?s=19


(Borrowed from earlier in this thread.)

Suddenly 20th October 2020 06:51 AM

It appears a purposeful technique of this sort of stuff is to make the mechanism of how the information came to light convoluted and dubious as to shift the discussion towards that and away from the substantive issue that this wouldn't be in the top 100 political scandals of the past year...

Tero 20th October 2020 06:58 AM

The FBI may now a laptop of some sort. But nobody is saying they have a Hunter Biden laptop. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1243874

Twitter: "You know the FBI could verify if it was Hunters laptop in like two seconds. Is the serial number of the laptop they subpoenaed linked to Biden's Apple account?"

shuttlt 20th October 2020 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tero (Post 13263688)
The FBI may now a laptop of some sort. But nobody is saying they have a Hunter Biden laptop. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1243874

Twitter: "You know the FBI could verify if it was Hunters laptop in like two seconds. Is the serial number of the laptop they subpoenaed linked to Biden's Apple account?"

It would be a little bit shocking if they hadn't done that months ago, wouldn't it? My assumption was that they already knew who it was registered to, where it was purchased from etc....

Squeegee Beckenheim 20th October 2020 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13263712)
It would be a little bit shocking if they hadn't done that months ago, wouldn't it? My assumption was that they already knew who it was registered to, where it was purchased from etc....

Probably. And what is it that they're investigating? Whether the dissemination of this information was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

JoeMorgue 20th October 2020 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly (Post 13263680)
It appears a purposeful technique of this sort of stuff is to make the mechanism of how the information came to light convoluted and dubious as to shift the discussion towards that and away from the substantive issue that this wouldn't be in the top 100 political scandals of the past year...

Politics is starting to learn that semantic discussions about the discussion is where the meat of the discussion is and where both "sides" think they win and earn the most points.

When Trump claims, with zero evidence, that Hunter Biden beat a hooker to death with a bottle of champagne, he knows that the "Is it Champagne or is it just sparkling wine?" debate will occur and both sides will claim victory over it even if the whole setup original question is laughably false.

The talking heads know we as a society will nitpick the nuance of a pointless question.

shuttlt 20th October 2020 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13263721)
Probably. And what is it that they're investigating? Whether the dissemination of this information was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

Terrific. If they have been investigating the laptop all these months, then they will have cleared up most of the uncertainty on the case already and it's just a question of what the appropriate way of getting the information out there is.

If they don't make a statement, then we would have the FBI knowing for nearly a year that a phoney laptop full of faked documents designed to implicate a candidate for the Presidency was kicking around and they'll have done nothing to mitigate the damage. Is that how they are supposed to operate?

Suddenly 20th October 2020 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13263722)
Politics is starting to learn that semantic discussions about the discussion is where the meat of the discussion is and where both "sides" think they win and earn the most points.

When Trump claims, with zero evidence, that Hunter Biden beat a hooker to death with a bottle of champagne, he knows that the "Is it Champagne or is it just sparkling wine?" debate will occur and both sides will claim victory over it even if the whole setup original question is laughably false.

The talking heads know we as a society will nitpick the nuance of a pointless question.

Right. It is a slightly more complex version of the sales technique of asking a potential buyer "what color car do you want" rather than "would you buy this car?"

The Moog 20th October 2020 07:56 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13263481)
Did they even have access to the original? Or an electronic version or copy of the original (so they could verify if it was an actual signature and not Photoshop.)

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

A journalist posted a scan of the receipt and a different signature of Biden on twitter.
here :
https://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/st...84991525502977

Comparing them upside down is interesting, my completely amateur analysis is these are very much not from the same person.

Ziggurat 20th October 2020 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jadebox (Post 13263665)

Common practice in these operations is to load the bait files with plenty of genuine hacked/stolen documents, photos, etc., then salt them with some forgeries.

He isn't claiming any of them aren't real.

JoeMorgue 20th October 2020 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly (Post 13263761)
Right. It is a slightly more complex version of the sales technique of asking a potential buyer "what color car do you want" rather than "would you buy this car?"

I've mentioned before how... not new all of this is to anyone he's been arguing with Woo Slingers. The only novelty is seeing it in politics. The fringe has been the test bed for arguing in a post-facts environment for decades.

Trump is just the political equivalent to every Woo Slinger that tries to start the discussion at a level of assumption that they are already right without the intellectual framework to get there.

The Great Zaganza 20th October 2020 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13263776)
He isn't claiming any of them aren't real.

What makes you think he has seen them all?
In violation of all journalistic practice, the NYP hasn't even contacted any of the Bidens before publication.

varwoche 20th October 2020 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerrywayne (Post 13263606)
"More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son 'has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.'”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...disinfo-430276

Those idiots need to read townhall. Amiright?

shuttlt 20th October 2020 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13263783)
What makes you think he has seen them all?
In violation of all journalistic practice, the NYP hasn't even contacted any of the Bidens before publication.

The original NYP article said they contacted Hunter Biden's lawyer for comment and Biden's campaign didn't return requests for comment.

TahiniBinShawarma 20th October 2020 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13263453)
It's funny that you'll dismiss the testimony of several anonymous sources in a reputable newspaper because they're unnamed, yet you seem prepared to take a single repair shop guy at his word, despite him also being unnamed and the conduit for his information (which matches a current Russian disinformation campaign) being noted-liar-who-has-openly-been-getting-information-from-an-active-Russian-intelligence-agent-and-who-the-US-intelligence-agencies-warned-the-White-House-was-likely-pushing-Russian-disinformation Rudy Giuliani, and also being unnamed.

It's almost like the actual credibility of the information isn't the primary consideration, and you're just making excuses to dismiss information you don't like and to amplify information you do.

Actually it's not funny at all. In case you missed it. The "Russian collusion" investigation was filled with leaks from anonymous sources that didn't pan out. Which only showed that leaks and "anonymous" sources speak to "reputable" news sources to push an agenda.

The repair shop owner's name is John Paul Mac Isaac, not sure why you think "single repair shop guy at his word, despite him also being unnamed " because that is clearly wrong.

We have 50 former intel and military people coming out on the "Russian disinformation" side. All these ex officials were in charge when Biden was doing his shady deals, and many have known ties to Chinese money, gov't, and orgs. I wouldn't take their word for it, they have no more information than you or I. They don't want to disrupt the gravy train. It's in their interest to push this line given much of the purported info in the emails is China related.

TahiniBinShawarma 20th October 2020 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by varwoche (Post 13263790)
Those idiots need to read townhall. Amiright?


Why would the guys who were on duty when all these deals happened, most of who have ties to China want the truth given much of the material on Biden's email is China related? These former guys have no more information on the case than you or I.

JoeMorgue 20th October 2020 08:28 AM

"Agenda" oohhhh scawwwy. *Rolls eyes*

TahiniBinShawarma 20th October 2020 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Moog (Post 13263772)
A journalist posted a scan of the receipt and a different signature of Biden on twitter.
here :
https://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/st...84991525502977

Comparing them upside down is interesting, my completely amateur analysis is these are very much not from the same person.

I believe the repair guy said Biden was drunk when he came in. I'll check for a cite on that. To my amateur opinion, the first half looks like a match, second half seems different, but we don't go with amateur analysis. Hell, even in court I'm sure you'd get 2 experts to say the opposite of one another anyway.

The Great Zaganza 20th October 2020 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13263800)
The original NYP article said they contacted Hunter Biden's lawyer for comment and Biden's campaign didn't return requests for comment.

That was not my information.

If any of the Bidens had seen the material, they certainly would have insisted that the Post refrain from publishing personal information like phone numbers.

So maybe the Post asked for comments, but I would need an actual quote that they showed what they had in advance.

TahiniBinShawarma 20th October 2020 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13263463)
Even that wouldn't be a smoking gun. Say Biden did manage to get a meeting between one person and his dad - and that's the worst thing alleged here - how does that in any way compare to even a tiny fraction of the ways that Trump has used his power to enrich himself and his family? Jared Kushner, for example, passed classified information on to MBS who used that information to purge political enemies - arresting, and even torturing and murdering some.

So let's assume that absolutely everything about this story is true. If that's the worst dirt Biden has, then he's still infinitely less corrupt as a candidate than Trump.

No sure why you say that's the worst thing here. The "Pop" and "Big guy" are money related, not about meetings.

TahiniBinShawarma 20th October 2020 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly (Post 13263680)
It appears a purposeful technique of this sort of stuff is to make the mechanism of how the information came to light convoluted and dubious as to shift the discussion towards that and away from the substantive issue that this wouldn't be in the top 100 political scandals of the past year...


Biden taking half of his son's salary would be a scandal. Not sure what makes you think not. Biden getting a portion of money to be held by Hunter on a deal would be a scandal. Not sure why you think it would not.

TahiniBinShawarma 20th October 2020 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tero (Post 13263688)
The FBI may now a laptop of some sort. But nobody is saying they have a Hunter Biden laptop. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1243874

Twitter: "You know the FBI could verify if it was Hunters laptop in like two seconds. Is the serial number of the laptop they subpoenaed linked to Biden's Apple account?"

The repair guy is, and that's where this started.

TahiniBinShawarma 20th October 2020 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13263807)
"Agenda" oohhhh scawwwy. *Rolls eyes*

If you're referring to the 50 former officials, they obviously have an agenda or they wouldn't have put it out. Roll your eyes all you want.

Babbylonian 20th October 2020 08:40 AM

We've mentioned that Hunter has money and so would probably never enter some rando's repair shop, let alone leave his PC there and never come back for it. I don't think anyone's brought up that an Apple user would probably go straight to Apple. Their service is one of the good reasons for buying their PCs...

But, of course, Hunter's been a substance abuser and that makes one forget everything. :rolleyes:

Armitage72 20th October 2020 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13263808)
I believe the repair guy said Biden was drunk when he came in.


Rudy Giuliani said Biden was drunk when he came in. The repair guy said he wasn't sure Biden ever came in because he can't see. I'm not sure how those two get reconciled without resorting to "bald faced lie".

shuttlt 20th October 2020 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13263809)
That was not my information.

If any of the Bidens had seen the material, they certainly would have insisted that the Post refrain from publishing personal information like phone numbers.

So maybe the Post asked for comments, but I would need an actual quote that they showed what they had in advance.

Where were you getting your information that the post hadn't contacted the Bidens? The original article from the post says that they did and summarises the response from Hunter Biden's lawyer.

TahiniBinShawarma 20th October 2020 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armitage72 (Post 13263832)
Rudy Giuliani said Biden was drunk when he came in. The repair guy said he wasn't sure Biden ever came in because he can't see. I'm not sure how those two get reconciled without resorting to "bald faced lie".

Actually he said “can't be 100 percent sure” no where does it say the person who is assumed to be Biden that dropped the laptop off wasn't drunk. Try harder.

Giordano 20th October 2020 08:52 AM

Apparently there are some stories too questionable for even Fox News to publish. And some of those too questionable for even a writer at the NY Post to include their byline on.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-...003834391.html

Can you imagine what huge, career making stories these would represent... if true? How sleazy they must have appeared to the journalists who had read them in detail and had the most intimate knowledge of them, only to walk away or cut any visible ties to them?

TahiniBinShawarma 20th October 2020 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babbylonian (Post 13263829)
We've mentioned that Hunter has money and so would probably never enter some rando's repair shop, let alone leave his PC there and never come back for it. I don't think anyone's brought up that an Apple user would probably go straight to Apple. Their service is one of the good reasons for buying their PCs...

But, of course, Hunter's been a substance abuser and that makes one forget everything. :rolleyes:


Again, someone trying to make sense of a crack and/or meth addicts actions. :rolleyes:

Giordano 20th October 2020 08:53 AM

Apparently there are some stories too questionable for even Fox News to publish. And some of those too questionable for even a writer at the NY Post to include their byline on.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-...003834391.html

Can you imagine what huge, career making stories these would represent... if true? How sleazy they must have appeared to the journalists who had read them in detail and had the most intimate knowledge of them, only to walk away or cut any visible ties to them?

shuttlt 20th October 2020 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giordano (Post 13263844)
Apparently there are some stories too questionable for even Fox News to publish. And some of those too questionable for even a writer at the NY Post to include their byline on.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-...003834391.html

Can you imagine what huge, career making stories these would represent... if true? How sleazy they must have appeared to the journalists who had read them in detail and had the most intimate knowledge of them, only to walk away or cut any visible ties to them?

Fox are now reporting that they have confirmed the story though...?

The Great Zaganza 20th October 2020 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13263838)
Where were you getting your information that the post hadn't contacted the Bidens? The original article from the post says that they did and summarises the response from Hunter Biden's lawyer.

I'm not disputing that, only saying that I didn't know that before, and that the article should not have been published the way it was, and curious why the Biden law team didn't do more to prevent publication.

My guess now is that they saw how much this would be an own-goal for Trump and the Post.

shuttlt 20th October 2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13263849)
I'm not disputing that, only saying that the article should not have been published the way it was, and curious why the Biden law team didn't do more to prevent publication.

My guess now is that they saw how much this would be an own-goal for Trump and the Post.

That's possible. Maybe the FBI will come out and confirm it is fake.

I'm not clear what the grounds would be for Biden to prevent them publishing that wouldn't mean Trump could have stopped the tax story.

TahiniBinShawarma 20th October 2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giordano (Post 13263844)
Apparently there are some stories too questionable for even Fox News to publish. And some of those too questionable for even a writer at the NY Post to include their byline on.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-...003834391.html

Can you imagine what huge, career making stories these would represent... if true? How sleazy they must have appeared to the journalists who had read them in detail and had the most intimate knowledge of them, only to walk away or cut any visible ties to them?

That's funny because people at fox did check and have since found two people copied on some of the emails who verified their authenticity. Then they reported on it with that supporting testimony to back it up.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hun...ource-verifies


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.