Hunter Biden Interview on Jimmy Kimmel

[dirtywick]

if there was suspicious content, nobody ever revealed what it was. They released embarrassing photos of a guy who wasn’t running for office or involved in a campaign and asked a bunch of leading questions that never went anywhere which I would consider a smear.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

"I don't remember anything about the laptop" does not refute the GOP accusations.

"I never brought a laptop to a repair shop" directly contradicts it.

Why does it matter?

Because it's so simple.

Yes, it was part of GOP smear campaign. But was it wrong? Was there suspicious content on his computer that was confiscated by the FBI?

His response does not answer that question as no.

I repeat, who cares?

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I repeat, who cares?

I think that's the right answer. If there was wrongdoing, then the FBI would certainly have noticed during their investigation. That didn't happen, so this page can be turned.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

"I don't remember anything about the laptop" does not refute the GOP accusations.

"I never brought a laptop to a repair shop" directly contradicts it.

Why does it matter?

Because it's so simple.

Yes, it was part of GOP smear campaign. But was it wrong? Was there suspicious content on his computer that was confiscated by the FBI?

His response does not answer that question as no.

So what? There are a real problems with the accusations against Hunter and the laptop

1. They come from Giuliani. These don't come from the DOJ or FBI. We have absolutely no reason to believe that any of the things that were supposedly on the laptop were actually on the laptop. Giuliani and the GOP keep demonstrating they will lie and cheat. They have lost credibility.
2. He was investigated by the FBI during the Trump administration. Yet nothing came of it.

What Hunter Biden remembers is irrelevant. Also as an aside, what the repair guy did was incredibly sleazy. I've worked with these companies. If somebody drops a laptop off for repair. You call them to pick up the laptop. You email or write to them and after a period of time, you wipe the disk and sell the laptop. His personal info is not the repair guy's business.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I repeat, who cares?

I care, because it proves, once again, as if we even need one more example, that the mainstream GOP is completely full of ****.

It used to be that stupid **** like this came from the CT fringe of any political movement, but now it's coming from elements of the GOP who have actual power and responsibility in society, and they're using that power to irresponsibly spread this crap. Everyone should care about this.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

So what? There are a real problems with the accusations against Hunter and the laptop

1. They come from Giuliani. These don't come from the DOJ or FBI. We have absolutely no reason to believe that any of the things that were supposedly on the laptop were actually on the laptop. Giuliani and the GOP keep demonstrating they will lie and cheat. They have lost credibility.
2. He was investigated by the FBI during the Trump administration. Yet nothing came of it.

What Hunter Biden remembers is irrelevant. Also as an aside, what the repair guy did was incredibly sleazy. I've worked with these companies. If somebody drops a laptop off for repair. You call them to pick up the laptop. You email or write to them and after a period of time, you wipe the disk and sell the laptop. His personal info is not the repair guy's business.

I have doubts as to whether the laptop existed at all, and the repair shop story smells like month old fish. I also suspect that the few emails that actually got released were the worst that Giuiani actually had (wherever they actually came from). It makes no sense, if the child porn and whatever terrible stuff Giuliani said were actually on the laptop that it was not released. Also, the emails and the laptop story were released very late (after a lot of early and mail-in ballots had already been cast). All of this points to a last-ditch effort to manufacture a scandal out of whole cloth. Had they really had anything damning, to Hunter or to Joe, it would have been released, and it would have been released a week or two earlier.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I care, because it proves, once again, as if we even need one more example, that the mainstream GOP is completely full of ****.

It used to be that stupid **** like this came from the CT fringe of any political movement, but now it's coming from elements of the GOP who have actual power and responsibility in society, and they're using that power to irresponsibly spread this crap. Everyone should care about this.

Originally Posted by CORed

I have doubts as to whether the laptop existed at all, and the repair shop story smells like month old fish. I also suspect that the few emails that actually got released were the worst that Giuiani actually had (wherever they actually came from). It makes no sense, if the child porn and whatever terrible stuff Giuliani said were actually on the laptop that it was not released. Also, the emails and the laptop story were released very late (after a lot of early and mail-in ballots had already been cast). All of this points to a last-ditch effort to manufacture a scandal out of whole cloth. Had they really had anything damning, to Hunter or to Joe, it would have been released, and it would have been released a week or two earlier.

That's kind of how I see it. If Giuliani had worse he would have presented the evidence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I care, because it proves, once again, as if we even need one more example, that the mainstream GOP is completely full of ****.

It used to be that stupid **** like this came from the CT fringe of any political movement, but now it's coming from elements of the GOP who have actual power and responsibility in society, and they're using that power to irresponsibly spread this crap. Everyone should care about this.

So you need his position on whether or not it is his laptop to know that?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So you need his position on whether or not it is his laptop to know that?

The issue was this:

Quote:

"I don't remember anything about the laptop" does not refute the GOP accusations.

"I never brought a laptop to a repair shop" directly contradicts it.

A crackhead not remembering things isn't surprising. The point is, I don't need a "direct contradiction" to determine if the GOP claims are ******** or not. If the claims had merit, they'd have the evidence to damn him, whether he remembers anything or not.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

"I don't remember anything about the laptop" does not refute the GOP accusations.

"I never brought a laptop to a repair shop" directly contradicts it.

Why does it matter?

Because it's so simple.

Not so simple. A categorical denial bears no more weight than a lack of recollection, and could even indicate subterfuge or outright lying. eg. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

Over the years I have owned many computers of various types. I honestly cannot recall what happened to many of them - and I don't take drugs of any kind.

Quote:

Was there suspicious content on his computer that was confiscated by the FBI?

I give up. Was there?

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Over the years I have owned many computers of various types. I honestly cannot recall what happened to many of them - and I don't take drugs of any kind.

Did you take any of them to a computer repair shop to recover the contents on the hard drive and then never go back to get them?

This is exactly the point. It's easy to say, "I don't know where my old laptops are." As you note, that is an honest answer. But it's also honest to say, "I never took them to a repair shop."

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Did you take any of them to a computer repair shop to recover the contents on the hard drive and then never go back to get them?

This is exactly the point. It's easy to say, "I don't know where my old laptops are." As you note, that is an honest answer. But it's also honest to say, "I never took them to a repair shop."

You do know that none of this story is probably true, right? Giuliani most likely just made the whole thing up. So what should Hunter Biden say other than what he did?

[Mongrel]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Did you take any of them to a computer repair shop to recover the contents on the hard drive and then never go back to get them?

This is exactly the point. It's easy to say, "I don't know where my old laptops are." As you note, that is an honest answer. But it's also honest to say, "I never took them to a repair shop."

"I don't remember one way or the other, I was pretty wrecked around that time" is also an honest answer.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If the laptop is a bogus story and Hunter has had numerous blackouts it is possible that he can't say the story is fake for that reason.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Have I missed something? Isn't the laptop story still such an obvious piece of total ******** that absolutely everyone is free to just ignore it?

[eerok]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Have I missed something? Isn't the laptop story still such an obvious piece of total ******** that absolutely everyone is free to just ignore it?

The laptop thing seemed like an attempt to recapitulate the Hillary email scandal of 2016. Putting it in the hands of Giuliani was a mistake.

But, yeah, it's pretty much a joke now.

[Cavemonster]

The laptop story as it unfolded was so bizarre.

The shop owner having apparent face blindness so they couldn't identify that Hunter dropped it off. The idea that the laptop was submitted to the FBI who put it into custody of the President's personal lawyer who held no government position? The fact that most of the supposed damning content was released in random, unofficial leak, distributed through chan sites and social media, with no official statement or way to distinguish what Giuliani was alleging to be real from any random photoshopped crap or made up claim being circulated. All from a laptop apparently abandoned in a city he didn't live in?

That's not how anything real works.

What I makes more sense than any of the bizarre chain of custody being claimed, is that somehow some Trump surrogate got ahold of either a used laptop or simply some files belonging Hunter and knew that once they could show they had something private of Hunter's, they could use that to claim that anything they like was found alongside it. I don't imagine Hunter was super careful with his cloud accounts when he was using crack, so I suspect personal photos or emails were as easy to access as celebrity photos stolen from the cloud by bored teenagers.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

There already exists a Roger Clinton.

And Billy Beer.

I've given up complaining about relatives getting mysteriously rich (much less the politicians directly.)

I guess you and yours are just investment geniuses nobody can ever "prove" wrongdoing. Ergo clean, pure investment geniuses. Look, even some bad investments! Yet the bottom line keeps going way up at many times your nominal salaries.


Hint: They are all corrupt. That's why they go into government. "Good policies" are just cover stories to win elections.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Beerina

I guess you and yours are just investment geniuses nobody can ever "prove" wrongdoing. Ergo clean, pure investment geniuses. Look, even some bad investments! Yet the bottom line keeps going way up at many times your nominal salaries.

Sure, the people taking the money are corrupt, but then, the people giving the money seem just a tad stupid to me. Is there anyone out there who really thinks that, as Vice President, Biden ever once thought, "Hey, these Ukrainian guys are giving my crack-addict son hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing nothing! I better be sure to do everything they ever ask of me!"

I mean, seriously, would any of you be swayed by such obvious nonsense? "Hey, we'll stop paying him that $80 000 a month!" "Big ******* deal, his bank account already has enough in it to support him for the next ten years. Go ahead and cut him off."

[gregthehammer]

I don't understand the people disparaging Hunter's crack habit. He was rather financially brilliant in his choice of addiction. He pulled in cocaine grade salary, but wisely shopped around for the better bang for the buck. Shows a bit of fiscal acuity, me thinks.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

The laptop story as it unfolded was so bizarre.

The shop owner having apparent face blindness so they couldn't identify that Hunter dropped it off. The idea that the laptop was submitted to the FBI who put it into custody of the President's personal lawyer who held no government position? The fact that most of the supposed damning content was released in random, unofficial leak, distributed through chan sites and social media, with no official statement or way to distinguish what Giuliani was alleging to be real from any random photoshopped crap or made up claim being circulated. All from a laptop apparently abandoned in a city he didn't live in?

That's not how anything real works.

What I makes more sense than any of the bizarre chain of custody being claimed, is that somehow some Trump surrogate got ahold of either a used laptop or simply some files belonging Hunter and knew that once they could show they had something private of Hunter's, they could use that to claim that anything they like was found alongside it. I don't imagine Hunter was super careful with his cloud accounts when he was using crack, so I suspect personal photos or emails were as easy to access as celebrity photos stolen from the cloud by bored teenagers.

It had a sticker on it though

[eerok]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

It had a sticker on it though

Did it say привет из россии ?

[Minoosh]

I was fine with Hunter but Jimmy Kimmel said something that kind of bugged me. Something like, "Your father always says the right thing," which I thought was overly obsequious (and I can't believe I spelled that right the first time). Fawning. I get that Kimmel is a comedian and he's certainly under no obligation to be neutral, but I do prefer a general irreverence toward people in power. Even when you're indescribably relieved that Biden got elected and prefer him over Trump a thousandfold. He should be fair game.

The problem is, a late-night show teasing Biden for a gaffe should be fine, but Trump fans don't do good-natured ribbing. A moment's forgetfulness might yield a good joke, but Trump's supporters will take it as proof that Biden is suffering from advanced dementia. On the other hand, those folks are already convinced and will just make up **** anyway, or swallow whole the lies that other people manufacture for them.

ETA: I'm probably a bit spoiled by looking at clips of old Dick Cavett interviews on YouTube. And yeah, he sucked up too on occasion.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I was fine with Hunter but Jimmy Kimmel said something that kind of bugged me. Something like, "Your father always says the right thing," which I thought was overly obsequious (and I can't believe I spelled that right the first time). Fawning. I get that Kimmel is a comedian and he's certainly under no obligation to be neutral, but I do prefer a general irreverence toward people in power. Even when you're indescribably relieved that Biden got elected and prefer him over Trump a thousandfold. He should be fair game.

The problem is, a late-night show teasing Biden for a gaffe should be fine, but Trump fans don't do good-natured ribbing. A moment's forgetfulness might yield a good joke, but Trump's supporters will take it as proof that Biden is suffering from advanced dementia. On the other hand, those folks are already convinced and will just make up **** anyway, or swallow whole the lies that other people manufacture for them.

ETA: I'm probably a bit spoiled by looking at clips of old Dick Cavett interviews on YouTube. And yeah, he sucked up too on occasion.

I didn't watch it, but are you sure he wasn't joking?

I voted for Biden, but the last thing I'd ever say about him is that he always says the right thing. It is very famously one of his major flaws that he puts his foot in his mouth and says weird inappropriate stuff with some regularity. That wouldn't just be obsequious, that would be pretty clearly false.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I didn't watch it, but are you sure he wasn't joking?

I voted for Biden, but the last thing I'd ever say about him is that he always says the right thing. It is very famously one of his major flaws that he puts his foot in his mouth and says weird inappropriate stuff with some regularity. That wouldn't just be obsequious, that would be pretty clearly false.

True. He was rather famous for his gaffes even before becoming president. He was said to have "foot-in-mouth disease".

He said Obama was "articulate and clean". Many others I can't remember.

I guess I'd have to watch the video to figure out whether Kimmel was saying that ironically or not.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I didn't watch it, but are you sure he wasn't joking?

I voted for Biden, but the last thing I'd ever say about him is that he always says the right thing. It is very famously one of his major flaws that he puts his foot in his mouth and says weird inappropriate stuff with some regularity. That wouldn't just be obsequious, that would be pretty clearly false.

Kimmel was serious, but context matters. "He always says the right thing" referred, I think, to Joe saying the right thing as a parent. This was in context of Hunter marrying a woman he'd known for a week. Joe didn't say "WHAT? Are you out of your ******* mind?!" No, he got on the phone with the woman (Melissa) and said, "Thank you for giving my son the courage to love again."

It was nothing to do with political speech, social issues etc. Just that Joe had the kind of reaction you hope for when you tell your parents something that might upset them.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Beerina

And Billy Beer.

I've given up complaining about relatives getting mysteriously rich (much less the politicians directly.)

I guess you and yours are just investment geniuses nobody can ever "prove" wrongdoing. Ergo clean, pure investment geniuses. Look, even some bad investments! Yet the bottom line keeps going way up at many times your nominal salaries.


Hint: They are all corrupt. That's why they go into government. "Good policies" are just cover stories to win elections.

Or you could look it up on wiki and see what gigs Hunter had before the whole Burisma thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Early_career

"Hunter Biden was appointed to a five-year term on the board of directors of Amtrak by President George W. Bush in 2006.[13] Biden was the board's vice chairman from July 2006 until 2009; he resigned in January 2009,[14][15] shortly after his father became vice president." (Wiki)

Remember Joe Biden was in year 36 of his "do nothing" phase so he wasn't a major player (for Hunter) until he was VP.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Or you could look it up on wiki and see what gigs Hunter had before the whole Burisma thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Early_career

"Hunter Biden was appointed to a five-year term on the board of directors of Amtrak by President George W. Bush in 2006.[13] Biden was the board's vice chairman from July 2006 until 2009; he resigned in January 2009,[14][15] shortly after his father became vice president." (Wiki)

Remember Joe Biden was in year 36 of his "do nothing" phase so he wasn't a major player (for Hunter) until he was VP.

But you have to remember that the same people that claim he didn't have any experience to be on Burisma's board are the same ones that claim all the other stuff he did prior to Burisma was only because of his father too. It creates the perfect scenario where they can claim that he has fo nothing but rely on his father's name, regardless of what he actually managed to do.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

But you have to remember that the same people that claim he didn't have any experience to be on Burisma's board are the same ones that claim all the other stuff he did prior to Burisma was only because of his father too. It creates the perfect scenario where they can claim that he has fo nothing but rely on his father's name, regardless of what he actually managed to do.

Wait, are you suggesting that getting appointed to the board of Amtrak wasn't due to his father's political influence behind the scenes?

Also, why was that the only bit quoted?

Quote:

After graduating from law school in 1996, Biden accepted a position at the bank holding company MBNA, a major contributor to his father's political campaigns.[5] By 1998, Biden had risen to the rank of executive vice president.[5]

Hmmm, first job was at a bank that was a major contributor to his father's political campaigns, and within two year of being hired he was already "executive vice president"?

Quote:

[10] He then left to serve at the United States Department of Commerce until 2001, focusing on ecommerce policy for President Bill Clinton's administration.[11] Biden then became a lobbyist, co-founding the firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair.[12] According to Adam Entous of The New Yorker, Biden and his father established a relationship in which "Biden wouldn't ask Hunter about his lobbying clients, and Hunter wouldn't tell his father about them."[5]

Hunter Biden was appointed to a five-year term on the board of directors of Amtrak by President George W. Bush in 2006.[13] Biden was the board's vice chairman from July 2006 until 2009; he resigned in January 2009,[14][15] shortly after his father became vice president. Biden said during his father's vice-presidential campaign that it was time for his lobbying activities to end.[5]

The board of directors of Amtrak thing wasn't even his primary occupation at the time, which was being a lobbyist.
Why would Bush, a Republican, nominate Biden? Maybe it was part of a package deal, so that Democrats wouldn't slow down or oppose his other nominees? These things are what they call "political horse trading". You give the opposition something they want in exchange for something you want. Exactly what the price was, I'm not entirely sure. Biden was the only Democrat on the board at the time (1 Democrat, 7 Republicans), so he effectively had no power anyway. It was a token concession with no real political cost to Republicans, who retained complete control over the board.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

But you have to remember that the same people that claim he didn't have any experience to be on Burisma's board are the same ones that claim all the other stuff he did prior to Burisma was only because of his father too. It creates the perfect scenario where they can claim that he has fo nothing but rely on his father's name, regardless of what he actually managed to do.

Those "people" have an Achilles heel. Anybody defending Hunter makes their heads explode. So defend Hunter and watch their heads explode. It's easy and fun!

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Wait, are you suggesting that getting appointed to the board of Amtrak wasn't due to his father's political influence behind the scenes?

Actually what I was suggesting, in actual fact stating bluntly, is that it's irrelevant whether he got the job because of his father or totally on his own, those that are being vocal don't actually care. In their eyes, it would have been impossible for him to hold any job above a floor sweeper at McDonald's without attributing it to his father because that's the easy play. The evidence that he got a good job because of his father is that he got a good job. Who needs anything else when you can just spout a heap of conjecture and say, "He couldn't possibly be able to get that any other way!"

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Wait, are you suggesting that getting appointed to the board of Amtrak wasn't due to his father's political influence behind the scenes?

Also, why was that the only bit quoted?


Hmmm, first job was at a bank that was a major contributor to his father's political campaigns, and within two year of being hired he was already "executive vice president"?


The board of directors of Amtrak thing wasn't even his primary occupation at the time, which was being a lobbyist.
Why would Bush, a Republican, nominate Biden? Maybe it was part of a package deal, so that Democrats wouldn't slow down or oppose his other nominees? These things are what they call "political horse trading". You give the opposition something they want in exchange for something you want. Exactly what the price was, I'm not entirely sure. Biden was the only Democrat on the board at the time (1 Democrat, 7 Republicans), so he effectively had no power anyway. It was a token concession with no real political cost to Republicans, who retained complete control over the board.

That the president of the United states appointed the son of a rival to a job he was unqualified for as a back room trade for political favors is a pretty major conspiracy theory to advance with zero actual evidence.

Not to mention the absurdity of the idea that some substantial number of democrats would get on board with legislation they otherwise opposed if Joe's son got some particular job. The idea that THAT is something the "other side" wanted, is fankly slanderous.

You're in the wrong section for that. Go to conspiracies.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Actually what I was suggesting, in actual fact stating bluntly, is that it's irrelevant whether he got the job because of his father or totally on his own, those that are being vocal don't actually care. In their eyes, it would have been impossible for him to hold any job above a floor sweeper at McDonald's without attributing it to his father because that's the easy play. The evidence that he got a good job because of his father is that he got a good job. Who needs anything else when you can just spout a heap of conjecture and say, "He couldn't possibly be able to get that any other way!"

You're wrong. The real question is what was McDonalds getting out of hiring someone who had never before used a broom professionally? Yeah, that's another thing that Hunter has just mysteriously forgotten.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Actually what I was suggesting, in actual fact stating bluntly, is that it's irrelevant whether he got the job because of his father or totally on his own, those that are being vocal don't actually care. In their eyes, it would have been impossible for him to hold any job above a floor sweeper at McDonald's without attributing it to his father because that's the easy play. The evidence that he got a good job because of his father is that he got a good job. Who needs anything else when you can just spout a heap of conjecture and say, "He couldn't possibly be able to get that any other way!"

Hunter Biden has a BA from Georgetown and JD from Yale Law School. He sounds quite eloquent. This is enough in many circles to get a 6 figure job. And I've noticed there are lots of high paying jobs in this country where you can fake it for years.(Not saying he was faking it, but he could have been)

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Hunter Biden has a BA from Georgetown and JD from Yale Law School. He sounds quite eloquent. This is enough in many circles to get a 6 figure job. And I've noticed there are lots of high paying jobs in this country where you can fake it for years.(Not saying he was faking it, but he could have been)

Was this nitpick really necessary? Here's a view of the "larger" picture and what has been normalized into mainstream GQP groupthink. Dig the comments. See any nuance in there?

Hunter Biden defends Burisma role, claims expertise in corporate governance

https://www.oann.com/hunter-biden-de...ent-5336848430


And just for fun:

DARPA unveils ‘COVID microchip,’ claims not for surveillance purposes

https://www.oann.com/darpa-unveils-c...ance-purposes/

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Was this nitpick really necessary? Here's a view of the "larger" picture and what has been normalized into mainstream GQP groupthink. Dig the comments. See any nuance in there?

Hunter Biden defends Burisma role, claims expertise in corporate governance

https://www.oann.com/hunter-biden-de...ent-5336848430

And just for fun:

DARPA unveils ‘COVID microchip,’ claims not for surveillance purposes

https://www.oann.com/darpa-unveils-c...ance-purposes/

Seriously? You're referencing OANN? The first article is fine. The second is insane.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Given his "for fun" comment I think he's citing it for comedic value.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Given his "for fun" comment I think he's citing it for comedic value.

I think you're right. Sometimes it is tough to pick up on this stuff when it is in print. Especially today. Trump just issued a statement that could have been in the Onion.

[Stacyhs]

The Feds just raided Giuliani's NYC apartment seizing electronic devices regarding the DOJ's investigation into his lobbying Ukraine for dirt on Hunter Biden according to CNN. This ain't over, Rudy.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The Feds just raided Giuliani's NYC apartment seizing electronic devices regarding the DOJ's investigation into his lobbying Ukraine for dirt on Hunter Biden according to CNN. This ain't over, Rudy.

According to Rudy's son, the only thing that the FBI didn't take was the laptop belonging to Hunter. Ummm, did he just claim that Giuliani has what would therefore be stolen property in his apartment?