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)

Minoosh 17th October 2020 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260400)
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."

*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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260400)
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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260400)
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.

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 ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260400)
I heard you same people blame Comey for exonerating Clinton a few days before the election for Trump's win 4 years 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260400)
You think they aren't going to drip this Biden stuff? You think this has nothing to do with the election?

"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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260400)
Or do you realize your snark about me "evading" was misplaced because you can't remember what you said?

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.

Squeegee Beckenheim 17th October 2020 04:00 AM

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.

Giordano 17th October 2020 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260371)
Did they come back with an alien hard drive with pictures of the aliens smoking meth? It didn't say in your link.

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

Youíve 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 ďthe Big Guy.Ē There is no comparison in terms of actual documentation!

Elagabalus 17th October 2020 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260429)
Keep butting into people having a discussion when you obviously have nothing to add.

Who took the photo of Hunter with the crack pipe?

dirtywick 17th October 2020 05:49 AM

this is what happens when you take Rudy Giuliani seriously

shuttlt 17th October 2020 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13260495)
*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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13260495)
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.

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.

shuttlt 17th October 2020 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 13260538)
Who took the photo of Hunter with the crack pipe?

Epstein

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13260495)
*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.


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.

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13260573)
Epstein

LOL, that's really funny.

shuttlt 17th October 2020 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260575)
LOL, that's really funny.

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

:-)

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 13260538)
Who took the photo of Hunter with the crack pipe?


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

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13260572)
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.


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.

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13260449)
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


Promise?

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13260487)
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.

"Likely" from "unnamed sources" gotcha.

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13260513)
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.

Back to reading Seth Abramson again?

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13260577)
It's 2020. Would you bet your house that it wasn't Epstein?

:-)

LOL, let me think about it.

wareyin 17th October 2020 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13260572)
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.

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

I Am The Scum 17th October 2020 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13260495)
"They" (and who is "they"?) may well drip "this Biden stuff" but gut feeling, it's not going to change anyone's mind...

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 Am The Scum 17th October 2020 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13260572)
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.

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.

timhau 17th October 2020 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260429)
Keep butting into people having a discussion when you obviously have nothing to add.

Have you tried facing away from the mirror?

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timhau (Post 13260631)
Have you tried facing away from the mirror?

Look, another one.

shuttlt 17th October 2020 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum (Post 13260616)
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.

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.

The Greater Fool 17th October 2020 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13260641)
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.

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

Skeptic Ginger 17th October 2020 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13260386)
So, let me get this straight....

And if it is fabricated, we're supposed to believe it's China behind it, not Russia? When China has been quite clear they prefer Biden to win and Russia has been quite clear in both word and action that they prefer Trump to win. I don't think it would take Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out.

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

Skeptic Ginger 17th October 2020 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13260409)
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.

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.

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool (Post 13260643)
You might "know" but you can't prove you didn't get an email. How do you prove you didn't delete it?


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.

I Am The Scum 17th October 2020 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool (Post 13260643)
You might "know" but you can't prove you didn't get an email. How do you prove you didn't delete it?

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?

Babbylonian 17th October 2020 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13260641)
I would expect Apple as well as the company who sent the email to have logs.

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.

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum (Post 13260649)
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?

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.

Squeegee Beckenheim 17th October 2020 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260585)
"Likely" from "unnamed sources" gotcha.

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.

Squeegee Beckenheim 17th October 2020 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260587)
Back to reading Seth Abramson again?

There's a Seth Abramson thread around here somewhere, started by a poster who is totally not you. If you want to discuss him, I'd suggest doing so in there.

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13260647)
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.

Eh, not sure what's so unreasonable about a drug addict rich kid leaving his laptop at a repair shop in his home state where his alleged crooked father he shares his money with lives.

Speaking of Qanon, that crazy Chinese video that was posted last month says the hard drive has pedo stuff with Biden on it lol. I'm really surprised no one if flipping out about this considering we have the picture of Rudy, crazy Chinese guy, crazy Chinese virus girl, and Bannon in the room all at the same time.

The other thing is that crazy Chinese guy says the hard drives are from China. At least the ones he's talking about. So that would go against RUdy's story about the hard drives. Unless this is a whole other set of drives lol.

It's entertaining to say the least.

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13260659)
There's a Seth Abramson thread around here somewhere, started by a poster who is totally not you. If you want to discuss him, I'd suggest doing so in there.


Thanks for the offer LOL, I'll pass on that nonsense.

Squeegee Beckenheim 17th October 2020 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum (Post 13260649)
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?

This is exactly it - you don't want to give it oxygen. Denials are never as impactful as scandal, regardless of whether or not the scandal is obviously fake, and by engaging with it all you're doing is providing the media the opportunity to run stories on your engagement.

Its the Streisand Effect, only moreso because FOX, OANN, Breitbart, etc. weren't specifically out to get Streisand, and that story wasn't deliberately seeded in order to be propagated in this manner.

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13260657)
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.

My point is that no evidence has been presented that it's Russian disinfo, and no name is attached to anyone with authority that it's Russian disinfo. This is Steel Dossier 101 stuff all over again.

Squeegee Beckenheim 17th October 2020 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260664)
Thanks for the offer LOL, I'll pass on that nonsense.

I didn't say that I'd engage with you on the subject there. I just said that that's the place for the discussion that you tried to initiate and now are calling "nonsense".

At least we can agree on that latter point.

TahiniBinShawarma 17th October 2020 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13260657)
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.


It's Steele Dossier 101 level nonsense. No one of authority has come out and said this is Russian disinformation. All there is is "people familiar with the matter" and the media burned that bridge a long time ago.

Beelzebuddy 17th October 2020 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma (Post 13260667)
This is Steel Dossier 101 stuff all over again.

You mean completely accurate in every verifiable respect but still rejected by the GOP because they don't like the conclusions?

Skeptic Ginger 17th October 2020 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum (Post 13260615)
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.

Sadly, no. A whole bunch of idiots are trying to push the story out there, spreading it among themselves via social media. And the news media seems to think they are obligated to use weasel words to describe it instead of coming out and calling it what it is, ludicrous.

Four years of Trump spinning lie after lie and people are still convinced by the next one. The news media has begun saying some things aren't true like the claim mail-in voting is open to massive fraud. At least they've gone that far. But Barr is repeating the story.

Has this been posted yet?

Above the Law: Career Prosecutor Torches Bill Barr In Epic Resignation Editorial
Quote:

ďAfter 36 years, Iím fleeing what was the U.S. Department of Justice ó where I proudly served 19 different attorneys general and six different presidents,Ē former Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip Halpern wrote yesterday in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

"Unfortunately, over the last year, Barrís resentment toward rule-of-law prosecutors became increasingly difficult to ignore, as did his slavish obedience to Donald Trumpís will in his selective meddling with the criminal justice system in the Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Roger Stone cases. In each of these cases, Barr overruled career prosecutors in order to assist the presidentís associates and/or friends, who potentially harbor incriminating information. This career bureaucrat seems determined to turn our democracy into an autocracy.

There is no other honest explanation for Barrís parroting of the presidentís wild and unsupported conspiracy theories regarding mail-in ballots (which have been contradicted by the presidentís handpicked FBI director) and his support for the presidentís sacking of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, whose office used the thinnest of veils to postpone charging the president in a criminal investigation along with Michael Cohen (who pled guilty and directly implicated the president)...."
He said he would have left sooner but wanted to finish the prosecution of:
Quote:

Congressman Duncan Hunter, who pled guilty to campaign finance violations, but spent a year screaming bloody murder that he was being persecuted for supporting Donald Trump. (Because he and his wife accidentally used the campaign credit card to pay for tuition, vacations, dental work, and trips to Burger King.)
Sounds just like a prosecution Barr and Trump would have derailed.

shuttlt 17th October 2020 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool (Post 13260643)
You might "know" but you can't prove you didn't get an email. How do you prove you didn't delete it?

Like I said, it depends what is being refuted. If I'm saying that the emails on the laptop aren't mine, then that is easily dealt with since I have access to my own email. If I am claiming they were altered, then again I have access to my emails so I can prove it. If I am claiming that the emails on the laptop are mine, but some additional emails have been slipped in, then I would expect the logs of Apple, or the other service providers who handled the email, to be able to show that the emails weren't sent. Given that the FBI are involved and presumably the owners of the mailboxes would be cooperative, this doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility.

The other thing is that what I can easily prove and what Biden's campaign can easily prove are very different things. I could not afford to get any lawyers, or computer forensics people involved, ISPs are unlikely to go out of their way to help me and the FBI are unlikely to care.

One weird thing in all of this is the number of rich important people using what look like free/generic email services for their business. Biden is using iCloud, somebody else is using Nazent. Is this the email equivalent of a burner phone?

One of the companies that supposedly sent him a dodgy email was j2cr. They are an international legal consultancy based in DC. I would hope that they have a legally compliant and auditable email system capable of demonstrating that they did or didn't send an email.

If these emails aren't genuine, it shouldn't be hard for them to prove. It may well not be the strategic moment to do that yet.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.