One particular inconvenient fact about the Hunter Biden laptop

[meaner gene]

In reality, the OP was tediously verbose and predicated on baseless assumptions. Dumpole has a long history of bloviating like that. Length of a post isn’t a measure of quality.

Better luck next time.

The OP was excruciatingly thorough. You can refute very little if any of it, which is why you can only give a "general denial".

 

[BluesLegend]

Breaking: It looks like Joe is heading to jail. Person alleging Biden criminal bribery scheme is a 'highly credible' FBI source used since Obama admin

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Actually, there's alot unfolding under the biden crime syndicate. The truth is coming out.

“Safe Harbor”: New Evidence Offers Insight into Hunter Biden and his Collapsing World of Corruption

Below is my column in the New York Post on newly discovered exchanges within the Biden family over the collapsing fortunes of Hunter Biden in 2018. As one of the primary conduits for influence pedd…

jonathanturley.org

 

[forkup]

You failed to make a valid point. Calling bullshit on what you said doesn’t constitute “proof” of your silly analysis.

In reality, the OP was tediously verbose and predicated on baseless assumptions. Dumpole has a long history of bloviating like that. Length of a post isn’t a measure of quality.

Better luck next time.

I only had one point, namely that the OP did a good job using his sources to form his own opinion instead of simply copying it.

But since you feel it's to verbose, I'm more than willing to summarize, and invite you to come back with anything substansive.

-Biden let in place the prosecutor investigating his own son. Making the whole idea that he is "weaponizing" the DOJ ludicrous.

-Nothing in the public realm relating to Hunter Biden's behavior implicates Joe Biden in a way that even comes close to charging him with anything in a court of law.

See nice and concise.

 

[BackAgain]

I only had one point, namely that the OP did a good job using his sources to form his own opinion instead of simply copying it.

But since you feel it's to verbose, I'm more than willing to summarize, and invite you to come back with anything substansive.

-Biden let in place the prosecutor investigating his own son. Making the whole idea that he is "weaponizing" the DOJ ludicrous.

-Nothing in the public realm relating to Hunter Biden's behavior implicates Joe Biden in a way that even comes close to charging him with anything in a court of law.

See nice and concise.

And I called bullshit. He had his mind made up long before he went out to locate sources in general agreement with his preconceived position. And then he basically offered a mini document dump as if that somehow supports his ignorant premises or conclusion.

I didn’t say you weren’t concise. I noted that DumpHole is usually wickedly verbose.

 

[forkup]

And I called bullshit. He had his mind made up long before he went out to locate sources in general agreement with his preconceived position. And then he basically offered a mini document dump as if that somehow supports his ignorant premises or conclusion.

I didn’t say you weren’t concise. I noted that DumpHole is usually wickedly verbose.

I notice you didn't address any of the substance of what Rump said even when I summarized it. Making my point of their nothing being offered of substance to rebut. "Bullshit" does not an argument make.

If you have one person giving sources and explains why those sources lead him to reach a certain conclusion, and another person simply says "bullshit." Who is making the better argument you think?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The particularly inconvenient facts about Hunter's laptop are (1) he is not running for office, and (2) any corruption cannot be tied to daddy.

 

[kyzr]

The particularly inconvenient facts about Hunter's laptop are (1) he is not running for office, and (2) any corruption cannot be tied to daddy.

Mr. Bobulinsky disagrees with that assessment.

 

[Batcat]

None of that matters to the Neo-GOP's narrative. It is set in stone and you can hear it on Faux Not News every day. They tell you what you want most to hear so you'll come back and boost their ratings and profitability.

Turn off Faux not News
It's just not News.

Explain why your liberal news media was so wrong about Trump colluding with Putin for almost six years. Fox News told me right from the start that this story was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/05/17/durham_report_finds_fbi_failures_no_russian_collusion_with_trump_149240.html

Fresh proof the Russiagate ‘scandal’ was created by the Hillary Clinton campaign

A federal grand jury handed up an indictment requested by special counsel John Durham — and it’s fresh proof that the entire Russiagate “scandal” was manufactured by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.…

nypost.com

 

[BackAgain]

I notice you didn't address any of the substance of what Rump said even when I summarized it. Making my point of their nothing being offered of substance to rebut. "Bullshit" does not an argument make.

If you have one person giving sources and explains why those sources lead him to reach a certain conclusion, and another person simply says "bullshit." Who is making the better argument you think?

You notice only what you wish to see even when it isn’t there.

 

[Delldude]

The poster has valid points.

Did you want to address any of them?

Things have radically changed since March 21, 2023.......

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nothing positive for MAGA has happened since March 21, 2023.

There has been a lot of mirth at its expense.

 

[themirrorthief]

For all the hoopla surrounding Biden's laptop, there is this inescapable, inconvenient, and very glaring fact:

When a new administration comes to the White House, one of the many things on the bucket list of presidential things to do is to fire all the US Attorneys from the previous administration, and bring in the new president's own team.

Joe Biden did this except for one, the US Attorney Delaware, David Weiss (two, actually, he left Durham in place who hasn't come up with squat, either).

Why was he left and not replaced?

Because the previous AG, Bill Barr, assigned this Trump appointed Us Attorney to investigate Hunter Biden. When Joe Biden took over the presidency, so as not to appear trying to tip the scales one way or the other, he left Weiss in place to finish the job, the investigation of his own son.

Does that sound like the work of a corrupt president? Sounds like just the opposite, to me, and should sound like the opposite of corruption to any rational human being who doesn't kneejerk at the first bit of innuendo and scant evidence that comes down the pike.

The fact of the matter is that Hunter Biden has been under investigation by the DOJ, to wit, a Trump appointed US Attorney David Weiss for the last three years, and Weiss has, thus far, not given the slightest hint that the President has done anything wrong (only that Hunter might be indicted for taxes and lying on a gun application form, but I doubt there is evidence of taxes, maybe not registering as a foreign agent, or some minor charge which I doubt a US Attorney will have the cajones to indict a sibling of a US President on a chickenshit charge).

David Weiss, the US attorney who holds Hunter Biden’s fate in his hands - Washington Examiner

David Weiss, the little-known U.S. attorney for Delaware, will soon step into the spotlight as the Justice Department's prosecutor with the power to file potential criminal charges against President Joe Biden’s troubled son Hunter. Multiple outlets reported Thursday that the FBI believes it has...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

So, If the shoe were on Trump's foot, would Trump have left that attorney in place if it were his son being investigated? We don't have to speculate, the answer is no because Trump fired Preet Bharara, the US Attorney who sensed he was about to be asked to do something inappropriate, who was getting regular phone calls from Trump, decided it was best to not answer his calls anymore, to head that prospect off at the pass, so to speak, and a day later, he was fired. Trump's WH reeks of corruption.

US attorney Preet Bharara fired after refusing Jeff Sessions' order to resign

Manhattan prosecutor’s announcement comes day after attorney general told US attorneys, nearly all appointed by Obama, they should resign from their posts

www.theguardian.com

That is the one fact which utterly vanquishes all the hysterics and hyperbole surrounding the 'laptop' saga. "In my opinion" and it is my opinion because it's logical

I've seen all the 'evidence' presented thus far and, what I've seen isn't evidence. Oh, it might be classified as some kind of evidence in the evendiary list on some academic chart, but it's not HARD evidence, the kind of evidence that strongly, if not proving, an allegation. Remember, this isn't about Hunter, it's about Joe, and on that score, the score is zero. Last time I checked, Hunter isn't running for office, and THAT is why I don't think it should be about Hunter. Although, 'scuse my whataboutism, but Jared scored $2 billion big ones from the murderous Mohammed Bin Salman on the way out of his gig at the Trump WH, and what, crickets from Republicans? Oh, a House committee commenced an investigation when Dems were in charged, but stalled when Repubs took over. Someone's barking up the wrong tree.

If you think you got proof, put up or shut up, as they say.

So, Put up or shut up. I don't care if you are nice or mean, it makes no real difference to me, but the important thing is, let's be factual. Make sure it will withstand scrutiny in a court cross examination, because I'm going scrutinize your 'evidence', (if that's what you call it). Fire away. Oh, don't tell me to hunt for it, because I sure as hell am not taking your word for what the facts are, even your contention that you think the proof is posted elsewhere this forum, Speaking of which, I have searched for evidence on this forum, and what I see, I can easily poke holes in, and so, the hard evidence, well, it's just not there. If you think you got it, show me.

And confirming this fact is because if it were really evidence, the kind that a prosecutor has confidence in which will hold up under forensic scrutiny in a court of law, we'd have heard from Weiss by now, and he's just not talking. How much can be on that hard drive, anyway? How long does it take just to investigate one man? Three years worth? Bobulinski hasn't produced squat. And the so called '$3.5 million allegedly paid to Hunter from the wife of a Moscow Mayor'? Uh, no, his lawyer, George Mesires, told CNN that Hunter Biden was not an owner of the firm Senate Republicans allege received the $3.5 million payment in 2014. “Hunter Biden had no interest in and was not a ‘co-founder’ of Rosemont Seneca Thornton, so the claim that he was paid $3.5 million is false,” Mesires said.

CNN's Facts First searchable database - CNN

Search CNN’s Facts First database for fact checks related to the U.S. economy, mail-in voting, coronavirus, police reform and more.

www.cnn.com

If you have a problem with CNN, quotes are either factual or they aren't', either Mesires said that or he didn't. Even CNN won't deliberately misquote a lawyer, and if that were not true, we'd have a statement from Mesires, and there is none.

Moreover, Glenn Kessler, WaPos fact checker since 2011 confirms it:




In other words, There is no clear evidence that Hunter Biden received $3.5 million from the former mayor of Moscow's wife.

None, but that's par for the course when it comes to alleged 'evidence' from Republicans.

In September 2020, a Senate Republican report alleged that Elena Baturina, the widow of the former mayor of Moscow, wired $3.5 million to a bank account associated with Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a company co-founded by Hunter Biden. The report also alleged that the transaction may have been "linked to prostitution or human trafficking."

However, these allegations have not been substantiated by any credible evidence, and Hunter Biden has denied them. The report was also criticized for relying on unverified and circumstantial information, and for being highly partisan in nature.

It's worth noting that Hunter Biden has faced scrutiny in the past due to his business dealings in Ukraine and China while his father, Joe Biden, was Vice President. However, there is no evidence that he has engaged in any illegal or unethical behavior.

As for this:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf

It has been debunked here:

What to Make of the Johnson-Grassley Report on Biden and Burisma

The report doesn't break any new ground and highlights the decline of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

www.lawfareblog.com

The reports retread familiar ground for those who followed the 2019 impeachment inquiry. And it’s hard to read these reports and not come to the same conclusion as those proceedings indicated: Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma had no impact on the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy decisions.

And here.

Republican Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden (Published 2020)

The report delivered on Wednesday appeared to be little more than a rehashing of unproven allegations that echoed a Russian disinformation campaign.

www.nytimes.com

[The] ...87-page report summing up the findings, released jointly on Wednesday by the Senate Homeland Security and Finance Committees, contained no evidence that the elder Mr. Biden improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed. In fact, investigators heard witness testimony that rebutted those charges.

I hear lot of innuendo, clever quips like 'Biden Family received $ from China'. However, it is notable that Hunter and his Brother equals 'family'. But, if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just a couple of Americans doing business abroad. So, when Republicans say 'Biden Family', they are hoping the listener won't notice, won't scrutinize the term, and assume 'family' includes Joe, so Republicans are intentionally being deceptive.

Is Hunter trading off dad's name? Well, he's admitted it, and so? Siblings trading off the names of their rich and famous parents are common. ANd It's not a crime. As for the allegation of "peddling influence'. yes, this is called lobbying, and Hunter is a registered lobbyist. As for foreign entities, okay, perhaps he'll get a hand slap for not registering under FARA. As for the salacious stuff on Hunter's laptop, really? this is what you think is going to get traction against Joe Biden? How many families have a troubled sibling, a black sheep, someone who has a drug problem? How many? You want to climb on a lofty perch and look down at Hunter Biden? What kind of person are you? Hunter is a private citizen. Have you forgot?

Steve Schmidt, ( Steve Schmidt - Wikipedia ) sets the record straight.



So let's take a look at Hunter Biden's resume:

Vice Chairman of National Railroad Passenger Corporation s
Headed the Lobbyist firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair
Vice Chairman on the Board Of Directors of Amtrak
Developed Ecommerce policy for Clinton administration
Served on China-based private equity firm, BHR Partners, Inc.

Got his bachelor's at Georgetown and JD at Yale. That's four year post graduate degree, and Yale is not for dummies.

Now, yes, he's a black sheep in the family, no doubt about it, but he's no slacker like the right wants to portray him as.
Yes, I know some of you are going to post memes of Hunter smoking crack, but that only underscores the point given in Schmidt's video, and the point being made; he was an addict and has since recovered, even wrote a book about it, and what, you're going to continue to try and get traction out if ot in the foolish belief it will reflect badly on Joe Biden? Not a chance. People will see through any attempt to dehumanize a troubled soul in need of help, and his father's love, which the evidence proves, in spades.

As for Joe knowing about his son's deals and the right is trying to get a lot of traction that he said he didn't, but he did, actually, in my book, it's more of a case where Joe, being, at times, sloppy with words (like Trump is, but he is all the time) I think he meant that he wasn't deeply involved with his sons dealings, but this idea that Joe couldn't know anything about his son's dealings, that's not even logical, Hunter's dealings has been plastered all over the news for a long time. Clearly, Joe would have a cursory knowledge, but that doesn't prove squat. But, of course, those on the right are trying to get traction that point, but it's silly, whether or not you succeed at a 'gotcha' on that point, it's not a crime, so why harp on it like it is? Moreover, photos of Joe with Hunter's buddies doesn't prove anything more than a photo of Trump with Epstein proves that Trump was schtupping teens on Epstein's island.

What I'm trying to convey is let's dispense with innuendo, like 'biden family received payments' (if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just one or two guys making a buck, the old American way, and you repubs should be proud of Hunter's entrepreneurial spirit! ). Let's deal in hard evidence.

Got any?

I didn't think so.

it must be a real bitch to have to make excuses for a hopeless rich crack head like scum HUnter

 

[themirrorthief]

Nothing positive for MAGA has happened since March 21, 2023.

There has been a lot of mirth at its expense.

it is hilarious when Joey falls and busts his withered old ash

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

For all the hoopla surrounding Biden's laptop, there is this inescapable, inconvenient, and very glaring fact:

When a new administration comes to the White House, one of the many things on the bucket list of presidential things to do is to fire all the US Attorneys from the previous administration, and bring in the new president's own team.

Joe Biden did this except for one, the US Attorney Delaware, David Weiss (two, actually, he left Durham in place who hasn't come up with squat, either).

Why was he left and not replaced?

Because the previous AG, Bill Barr, assigned this Trump appointed Us Attorney to investigate Hunter Biden. When Joe Biden took over the presidency, so as not to appear trying to tip the scales one way or the other, he left Weiss in place to finish the job, the investigation of his own son.

Does that sound like the work of a corrupt president? Sounds like just the opposite, to me, and should sound like the opposite of corruption to any rational human being who doesn't kneejerk at the first bit of innuendo and scant evidence that comes down the pike.

The fact of the matter is that Hunter Biden has been under investigation by the DOJ, to wit, a Trump appointed US Attorney David Weiss for the last three years, and Weiss has, thus far, not given the slightest hint that the President has done anything wrong (only that Hunter might be indicted for taxes and lying on a gun application form, but I doubt there is evidence of taxes, maybe not registering as a foreign agent, or some minor charge which I doubt a US Attorney will have the cajones to indict a sibling of a US President on a chickenshit charge).

David Weiss, the US attorney who holds Hunter Biden’s fate in his hands - Washington Examiner

David Weiss, the little-known U.S. attorney for Delaware, will soon step into the spotlight as the Justice Department's prosecutor with the power to file potential criminal charges against President Joe Biden’s troubled son Hunter. Multiple outlets reported Thursday that the FBI believes it has...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

So, If the shoe were on Trump's foot, would Trump have left that attorney in place if it were his son being investigated? We don't have to speculate, the answer is no because Trump fired Preet Bharara, the US Attorney who sensed he was about to be asked to do something inappropriate, who was getting regular phone calls from Trump, decided it was best to not answer his calls anymore, to head that prospect off at the pass, so to speak, and a day later, he was fired. Trump's WH reeks of corruption.

US attorney Preet Bharara fired after refusing Jeff Sessions' order to resign

Manhattan prosecutor’s announcement comes day after attorney general told US attorneys, nearly all appointed by Obama, they should resign from their posts

www.theguardian.com

That is the one fact which utterly vanquishes all the hysterics and hyperbole surrounding the 'laptop' saga. "In my opinion" and it is my opinion because it's logical

I've seen all the 'evidence' presented thus far and, what I've seen isn't evidence. Oh, it might be classified as some kind of evidence in the evendiary list on some academic chart, but it's not HARD evidence, the kind of evidence that strongly, if not proving, an allegation. Remember, this isn't about Hunter, it's about Joe, and on that score, the score is zero. Last time I checked, Hunter isn't running for office, and THAT is why I don't think it should be about Hunter. Although, 'scuse my whataboutism, but Jared scored $2 billion big ones from the murderous Mohammed Bin Salman on the way out of his gig at the Trump WH, and what, crickets from Republicans? Oh, a House committee commenced an investigation when Dems were in charged, but stalled when Repubs took over. Someone's barking up the wrong tree.

If you think you got proof, put up or shut up, as they say.

So, Put up or shut up. I don't care if you are nice or mean, it makes no real difference to me, but the important thing is, let's be factual. Make sure it will withstand scrutiny in a court cross examination, because I'm going scrutinize your 'evidence', (if that's what you call it). Fire away. Oh, don't tell me to hunt for it, because I sure as hell am not taking your word for what the facts are, even your contention that you think the proof is posted elsewhere this forum, Speaking of which, I have searched for evidence on this forum, and what I see, I can easily poke holes in, and so, the hard evidence, well, it's just not there. If you think you got it, show me.

And confirming this fact is because if it were really evidence, the kind that a prosecutor has confidence in which will hold up under forensic scrutiny in a court of law, we'd have heard from Weiss by now, and he's just not talking. How much can be on that hard drive, anyway? How long does it take just to investigate one man? Three years worth? Bobulinski hasn't produced squat. And the so called '$3.5 million allegedly paid to Hunter from the wife of a Moscow Mayor'? Uh, no, his lawyer, George Mesires, told CNN that Hunter Biden was not an owner of the firm Senate Republicans allege received the $3.5 million payment in 2014. “Hunter Biden had no interest in and was not a ‘co-founder’ of Rosemont Seneca Thornton, so the claim that he was paid $3.5 million is false,” Mesires said.

CNN's Facts First searchable database - CNN

Search CNN’s Facts First database for fact checks related to the U.S. economy, mail-in voting, coronavirus, police reform and more.

www.cnn.com

If you have a problem with CNN, quotes are either factual or they aren't', either Mesires said that or he didn't. Even CNN won't deliberately misquote a lawyer, and if that were not true, we'd have a statement from Mesires, and there is none.

Moreover, Glenn Kessler, WaPos fact checker since 2011 confirms it:




In other words, There is no clear evidence that Hunter Biden received $3.5 million from the former mayor of Moscow's wife.

None, but that's par for the course when it comes to alleged 'evidence' from Republicans.

In September 2020, a Senate Republican report alleged that Elena Baturina, the widow of the former mayor of Moscow, wired $3.5 million to a bank account associated with Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a company co-founded by Hunter Biden. The report also alleged that the transaction may have been "linked to prostitution or human trafficking."

However, these allegations have not been substantiated by any credible evidence, and Hunter Biden has denied them. The report was also criticized for relying on unverified and circumstantial information, and for being highly partisan in nature.

It's worth noting that Hunter Biden has faced scrutiny in the past due to his business dealings in Ukraine and China while his father, Joe Biden, was Vice President. However, there is no evidence that he has engaged in any illegal or unethical behavior.

As for this:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf

It has been debunked here:

What to Make of the Johnson-Grassley Report on Biden and Burisma

The report doesn't break any new ground and highlights the decline of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

www.lawfareblog.com

The reports retread familiar ground for those who followed the 2019 impeachment inquiry. And it’s hard to read these reports and not come to the same conclusion as those proceedings indicated: Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma had no impact on the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy decisions.

And here.

Republican Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden (Published 2020)

The report delivered on Wednesday appeared to be little more than a rehashing of unproven allegations that echoed a Russian disinformation campaign.

www.nytimes.com

[The] ...87-page report summing up the findings, released jointly on Wednesday by the Senate Homeland Security and Finance Committees, contained no evidence that the elder Mr. Biden improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed. In fact, investigators heard witness testimony that rebutted those charges.

I hear lot of innuendo, clever quips like 'Biden Family received $ from China'. However, it is notable that Hunter and his Brother equals 'family'. But, if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just a couple of Americans doing business abroad. So, when Republicans say 'Biden Family', they are hoping the listener won't notice, won't scrutinize the term, and assume 'family' includes Joe, so Republicans are intentionally being deceptive.

Is Hunter trading off dad's name? Well, he's admitted it, and so? Siblings trading off the names of their rich and famous parents are common. ANd It's not a crime. As for the allegation of "peddling influence'. yes, this is called lobbying, and Hunter is a registered lobbyist. As for foreign entities, okay, perhaps he'll get a hand slap for not registering under FARA. As for the salacious stuff on Hunter's laptop, really? this is what you think is going to get traction against Joe Biden? How many families have a troubled sibling, a black sheep, someone who has a drug problem? How many? You want to climb on a lofty perch and look down at Hunter Biden? What kind of person are you? Hunter is a private citizen. Have you forgot?

Steve Schmidt, ( Steve Schmidt - Wikipedia ) sets the record straight.



So let's take a look at Hunter Biden's resume:

Vice Chairman of National Railroad Passenger Corporation s
Headed the Lobbyist firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair
Vice Chairman on the Board Of Directors of Amtrak
Developed Ecommerce policy for Clinton administration
Served on China-based private equity firm, BHR Partners, Inc.

Got his bachelor's at Georgetown and JD at Yale. That's four year post graduate degree, and Yale is not for dummies.

Now, yes, he's a black sheep in the family, no doubt about it, but he's no slacker like the right wants to portray him as.
Yes, I know some of you are going to post memes of Hunter smoking crack, but that only underscores the point given in Schmidt's video, and the point being made; he was an addict and has since recovered, even wrote a book about it, and what, you're going to continue to try and get traction out if ot in the foolish belief it will reflect badly on Joe Biden? Not a chance. People will see through any attempt to dehumanize a troubled soul in need of help, and his father's love, which the evidence proves, in spades.

As for Joe knowing about his son's deals and the right is trying to get a lot of traction that he said he didn't, but he did, actually, in my book, it's more of a case where Joe, being, at times, sloppy with words (like Trump is, but he is all the time) I think he meant that he wasn't deeply involved with his sons dealings, but this idea that Joe couldn't know anything about his son's dealings, that's not even logical, Hunter's dealings has been plastered all over the news for a long time. Clearly, Joe would have a cursory knowledge, but that doesn't prove squat. But, of course, those on the right are trying to get traction that point, but it's silly, whether or not you succeed at a 'gotcha' on that point, it's not a crime, so why harp on it like it is? Moreover, photos of Joe with Hunter's buddies doesn't prove anything more than a photo of Trump with Epstein proves that Trump was schtupping teens on Epstein's island.

What I'm trying to convey is let's dispense with innuendo, like 'biden family received payments' (if Joe isn't in the picture, it's just one or two guys making a buck, the old American way, and you repubs should be proud of Hunter's entrepreneurial spirit! ). Let's deal in hard evidence.

Got any?

I didn't think so.

Was this bloviating screed you posted worth the 15 cents?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No corroborating evidence has been released, only allegations.

 

[Delldude]

No corroborating evidence has been released, only allegations.

Maybe you can tell us, what was released during the two plus years of Trump persecution by Mueller?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Maybe you can tell us, what was released during the two plus years of Trump persecution by Mueller?

fallacy of false equivalency

we are talking about this investigation

 

[Delldude]

fallacy of false equivalency

we are talking about this investigation

It matters. Nothing was released during Mueller's investigation, except leaks.
Same standard applies here. You know that.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It matters. Nothing was released during Mueller's investigation, except leaks.
Same standard applies here. You know that.

Not at all.