We are owed apologies by everyone from the "media" to our "betters" who run social media on a whole host of things that were right, just before the election. Who is going to be charged with election tampering for that? Is Alvin Bragg going to be charged with election tampering for his completely unwarranted case? Is Fanni Willis? No. I have zero use for the modern Propagandistas in the "media" but the Father of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
In my thinking, inside these United States of America,unless a person answers to a loving God, the Creator of the Cosmos, he or she is quick to think of themselves first and others get the scraps from the table. Politicians are famous for that, the only time they swear to tell the truth is when they’re pointing their fingers at someone else.
Everyone should, at least, try to follow the two great commandments, and love God and your neighbor. It appears that that is just too difficult a task. A lot of folks have tried, but were killed by the hater’s.
The good news is the good folks win in the end.
We, Christians, aren’t without fault, but are forgiven by Jesus Christ.
Thanks Eric I was confused I didn’t know facts and common sense was the so hard to understand I thought I was just a racist bigoted white guy that was voting for a felon. These people aren’t journalists we all know that
Anyone who has previously believed that the laptop wasn't Hunters and was Russian "disinformation" had to be willfully blind. We didn't just this week "discover" that it was real due to this FBI testimony.
No. He died in a car wreck while swimming in his pool. The coroner ruled it a suicide by car diving. There was a suicide note written in Hillaries handwriting but nothing to see here folks
As I understand its contents, I have never understood how Hunter's laptop is supposed to incriminate his father. He was pretty clearly trying to cash in on his father's good name and position in government. In order to do so, however, he would want to leave people with the impression of the former Vice President's involvement in his business, irrespective of whether he was actually involved or not.
So, other than proof that Hunter himself is/was dishonest and a complete mess, what is the laptop supposed to prove?
Of course you don't. That is either because you are willing to believe what the propagandistas tell you as true or you are a willing co-conspirator spreading disinformation. Common sense explains why it incriminates Joe Biden. However, I'm fairly certain you are outraged that Sam Alito's wife flew the Appeal to Heaven flag.
No, it's because I understand the evidentiary standards distinguishing direct and circumstantial evidence, and further distinguishing those from mere hearsay.
One piece of uncontradicted direct evidence can constitute proof. One piece of circumstantial evidence, standing alone, generally proves nothing. And if all the laptop contains are emails from Hunter relating what his father said to him, that's not legally considered evidence at all. Not only is it hearsay, anything Hunter related to then or prospective business partners about what his father said to him would be the self-serving statement of a drug addict who is currently on trial for lying.
That said, my main problem with relying on anything Hunter said to then or prospective business partners about his father's involvement is that it was self-serving: that is, Hunter stood to gain from having others believe that his father was involved. In other words, he had a motive to lie.
So help me out here. Exactly what is it in Hunter's laptop that actually proves anything? If there is anything there that constitutes direct evidence of the President's involvement, I would also be interested in knowing how the House impeachment inquiry would seem to have missed it.
"That [Hunter's emails] not legally considered evidence at all." Okay, Shill. You can be ignored. Emails are 100% evidence and have been since the invention of the digital communications systems. A digital forensic examination will give IP address, time/date stamp, and IP path across the internet. It will show who sent it, whose credentials were logged on to both the laptop and the email system. It is ABSOLUTELY incriminating but you go ahead and try to spin it so that the laptop isn't the smoking gun it really is. No one here is taking you seriously any more. Good luck spinning this on other social media though.
Oh, and since you no longer take me seriously, I would not expect you to be commenting on any more of my posts. I've enjoyed our exchanges. Goodbye and good luck.
Other than to remind people your only goal is to spin things into a favorable light ignoring clear information and gaslight people into whatever progressive talking point, sure. Good luck to you too.
If you think an email constituting hearsay is legally considered evidence, you're embarrassing yourself in the eyes of anyone who actually knows anything about evidence.
Nice try. I've been involved in some things I'll leave out of a public forum where preservation of email, chain of custody, and expert testimony from IT professionals absolutely constituted rock-solid evidence. Perhaps they do things differently where you practice law, but in my experience that laptop is damning, but you do you. We'll see how this plays out.
The laptop coverage incriminates the media for claiming it was fake. It incriminates the left for LYING that Trump is a threat to democracy, and by their lying they’re proving that they are a threat to this democratic republic, as they are willing to lie continuously for the DNC. Erick’s piece this afternoon isn’t about getting Joe, it’s about leftist ‘journalists’ not calling balls and strikes fairly. They have made themselves useless.
Have to ask Fox about that. But the big claim is Trump will end democracy while the DNC manages to get legacy media to do their heavy lifting and bury the laptop story. Those kind of actions are the real threat to democracy. DNC is counting on low information voters that watch shows like the View for information. The laptop story just highlights who they really are.
There is information in the laptop that confirms what the business partner has been saying for years. You know, the guy who had first hand knowledge because he was actually present when Biden himself was there doing business with Hunter and the other entities. Give me time and I will remember his name. He tried very much to be able to testify and there was great effort in preventing him from doing so.
Because joe said repeatedly that the Laptop didn't exist. Catching him in a big fat lie. Something they often accuse trump of. Its a show piece to illustrate the corruption within that admin right now. Its also to discredit the mainstream media.
That would be incriminating if there is evidence that "the big guy" either requested or acknowledged receipt of the 10%.
As for meeting with people with whom Hunter was doing business, Joe has probably spent time with countless people at Hunter's request, both with whom Hunter was and was not doing business. In either event, Joe could simply be responding to "Dad, could you say hello to some friends of mine."
I'm not saying that the foregoing does not constitute evidence suggesting the former Vice President's involvement, but I still maintain that without more, it proves nothing.
Now I remember the name of the business partner. Tony Bobolinski. Undoubtably misspelled. He had first hand knowledge that "the big guy" was Biden himself, and that a certain percentage was to go to him.
Neil, you’re ignoring the point of Erick’s piece. Only one talking about Biden is you. Does it not bother you that the media lied over and over about this laptop?
Before responding, I wanted to refresh my recollection of how events transpired after the discovery of that laptop. Turns out that I had in fact forgotten that a group of 51 former senior intelligence officials who had served in four different administrations, including the Trump administration, released an open letter stating that the release of emails from the laptop "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." This is simply what the mainstream media chose to focus on. In doing so, they didn't lie. They simply emphasized that aspect of the story that was in conformity with their world view.
You might note that I termed them the "mainstream" media. That part of the media absolutely has a liberal/progressive bias. But are Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the conservatives that dominate AM radio not also "media?" I am working on a project that has acquainted me with the very early history of politics in this country. Bias in the media dates back to when Thomas Jefferson used one paper and Alexander Hamilton another to attack and defend, respectively, George Washington's policies. Fact is that from that time until about the 1900's newspapers (then of course, the only "media") were unabashedly partisan, making no pretense whatsoever at editorial objectivity. The media that you and I grew up with may have thought itself objective, but it never really was; which is why Fox News and conservative outlets came into being in the first place.
Indeed, I might ask that with Fox News having knowingly aired and promoted election fraud theories that they themselves did not even believe, does that not bother you? It doesn't really bother me that much because I consider bias in the media to be a given: always has been, always will be. The only thing new under the sun is the degree to which conservative like to whine about the bias of the other side. I mean, do you really not realize that Fox News et al, including Erick Erickson, have a conservative bias that affects what they say in the same way that liberal bias affects the NY Times?
All that said, if anything bothered me after Rudy Guliani (since disbarred, of course, basically for being dishonest) produced the laptop, it was the censorship of the story by the social media companies. There being only a few who are effectively in control of what has become the public square, my sense was: "You today, me tomorrow." This worries me a lot more than bias in the news media.
In closing, I would address a question that you did not actually ask: Does it bother me that Hunter's laptop got treated as Russian disinformation, when it wasn't? Well, does it bother you that the 2016 election quite arguably turned on the discovery of another laptop (Anthony Weiner's) that turned out to contain nothing of relevance?
"October surprises" aren't a very good way of picking a President.
I am almost certain "Neil McKenna" is either a shill account here or a progressive operative designed to be a foil for the propagandistas ahead of the election. No one is that willfully ignorant of the facts when confronted with this level of evidence.
I'm a Chicago Democrat who came out of the U.S. Army at the rank of Captain, became a lawyer and then spent three years on the staff of a Republican Lt. Governor. Generally speaking, my political perspective falls very, very close to that of Joe Scarborough, whom I believe only abandoned his Republican party identification with the advent of Donald Trump. More specifically, I believe that the Constitution intended that the federal government play a more limited role than has come to pass; that because government tends to be inherently inefficient, any government function that can be outsourced should be; that Democratic government in big cities has largely failed; that our inner cities require more rather than less policing; that Ronald Reagan won the cold war; that our military capabilities must remain preeminent in this world; and that with the possible exception of climate change, our national debt is fast becoming our biggest problem. Finally, I do not believe in a "living" constitution. In sum, on a great many issues, my perspective is much more conservative than liberal/progressive.
Above all, (as I think is substantiated by my military service ) I love this country - its rich and proud history in particular. And the thought of a perpetually lying, draft dodging, porn star schtuping, hush money-paying, convicted felon sitting in the same chair as was occupied by giants like Washington, Lincoln, the Roosevelts . . . and yes, Reagan . . . makes me want to scream!
So what am I doing here? Those three years spent looking at my own party from the other party's perspective taught me that all too often, Democrats are full of it. Moreover, as a general proposition, I find that I learn more from people with whom I disagree than from someone who already shares my perspective. Until it started simply lying to me (about the 2020 election having been stolen), I used to consume a lot more conservative media. Now, I mostly just follow Erich because he's no liar, hasn't completely "drunk the koolaid," and I can't help but respect someone who is sometimes able to convince me that I was wrong.
You have to have a prosecutor that’s willing to go down that road and a FBI that’s willing to investigate right now you can get investigated for showing up at a school board meeting meeting yet be on a terror watch list and walk across the border with a court date sometime in the next century also you don’t aquire that much wealth being a public servant your whole adult life on the eastern seaboard where it is very expensive to live
I remember listening in real time as NPR “explained” why they didn’t bother to cover the laptop. That helped me decide I really didn’t need to listen to them anymore.
Those 50 or so who backed the a Russia mid-information story should have all security clearances cancelled. They are part of the problem, can’t people just be straight up honest?
Unfortunately the majority on the left would rather hear and believe a well crafted lie that fits their worldview, than accept the naked truth.
We are owed apologies by everyone from the "media" to our "betters" who run social media on a whole host of things that were right, just before the election. Who is going to be charged with election tampering for that? Is Alvin Bragg going to be charged with election tampering for his completely unwarranted case? Is Fanni Willis? No. I have zero use for the modern Propagandistas in the "media" but the Father of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
Preach Brother
Exactly. Very well said.
So how do we prosecute members of congress as well as members of the FBI for election interference?
Nazi Media and Stalin Press made up PROPAGANDA (LIES) to influence People.
MSNBC is doing the same except under the perception of not being controlled by FAR LEFT>
In my thinking, inside these United States of America,unless a person answers to a loving God, the Creator of the Cosmos, he or she is quick to think of themselves first and others get the scraps from the table. Politicians are famous for that, the only time they swear to tell the truth is when they’re pointing their fingers at someone else.
Everyone should, at least, try to follow the two great commandments, and love God and your neighbor. It appears that that is just too difficult a task. A lot of folks have tried, but were killed by the hater’s.
The good news is the good folks win in the end.
We, Christians, aren’t without fault, but are forgiven by Jesus Christ.
Thank you Erick for what you do.
I hope your sore jaw heals soon.
Bravo, Erick!
Thanks Eric I was confused I didn’t know facts and common sense was the so hard to understand I thought I was just a racist bigoted white guy that was voting for a felon. These people aren’t journalists we all know that
Anyone who has previously believed that the laptop wasn't Hunters and was Russian "disinformation" had to be willfully blind. We didn't just this week "discover" that it was real due to this FBI testimony.
That PC repairman who copied and shared the hard drive contents on Hunter's PC: Is he still above ground and breathing on his own?
No. He died in a car wreck while swimming in his pool. The coroner ruled it a suicide by car diving. There was a suicide note written in Hillaries handwriting but nothing to see here folks
As I understand its contents, I have never understood how Hunter's laptop is supposed to incriminate his father. He was pretty clearly trying to cash in on his father's good name and position in government. In order to do so, however, he would want to leave people with the impression of the former Vice President's involvement in his business, irrespective of whether he was actually involved or not.
So, other than proof that Hunter himself is/was dishonest and a complete mess, what is the laptop supposed to prove?
Of course you don't. That is either because you are willing to believe what the propagandistas tell you as true or you are a willing co-conspirator spreading disinformation. Common sense explains why it incriminates Joe Biden. However, I'm fairly certain you are outraged that Sam Alito's wife flew the Appeal to Heaven flag.
No, it's because I understand the evidentiary standards distinguishing direct and circumstantial evidence, and further distinguishing those from mere hearsay.
One piece of uncontradicted direct evidence can constitute proof. One piece of circumstantial evidence, standing alone, generally proves nothing. And if all the laptop contains are emails from Hunter relating what his father said to him, that's not legally considered evidence at all. Not only is it hearsay, anything Hunter related to then or prospective business partners about what his father said to him would be the self-serving statement of a drug addict who is currently on trial for lying.
That said, my main problem with relying on anything Hunter said to then or prospective business partners about his father's involvement is that it was self-serving: that is, Hunter stood to gain from having others believe that his father was involved. In other words, he had a motive to lie.
So help me out here. Exactly what is it in Hunter's laptop that actually proves anything? If there is anything there that constitutes direct evidence of the President's involvement, I would also be interested in knowing how the House impeachment inquiry would seem to have missed it.
"That [Hunter's emails] not legally considered evidence at all." Okay, Shill. You can be ignored. Emails are 100% evidence and have been since the invention of the digital communications systems. A digital forensic examination will give IP address, time/date stamp, and IP path across the internet. It will show who sent it, whose credentials were logged on to both the laptop and the email system. It is ABSOLUTELY incriminating but you go ahead and try to spin it so that the laptop isn't the smoking gun it really is. No one here is taking you seriously any more. Good luck spinning this on other social media though.
Oh, and since you no longer take me seriously, I would not expect you to be commenting on any more of my posts. I've enjoyed our exchanges. Goodbye and good luck.
Other than to remind people your only goal is to spin things into a favorable light ignoring clear information and gaslight people into whatever progressive talking point, sure. Good luck to you too.
If you think an email constituting hearsay is legally considered evidence, you're embarrassing yourself in the eyes of anyone who actually knows anything about evidence.
Nice try. I've been involved in some things I'll leave out of a public forum where preservation of email, chain of custody, and expert testimony from IT professionals absolutely constituted rock-solid evidence. Perhaps they do things differently where you practice law, but in my experience that laptop is damning, but you do you. We'll see how this plays out.
Big guy
The laptop coverage incriminates the media for claiming it was fake. It incriminates the left for LYING that Trump is a threat to democracy, and by their lying they’re proving that they are a threat to this democratic republic, as they are willing to lie continuously for the DNC. Erick’s piece this afternoon isn’t about getting Joe, it’s about leftist ‘journalists’ not calling balls and strikes fairly. They have made themselves useless.
What has Hunter's laptop got to do with the question of whether Trump is a threat to democracy?
And didn't Fox News pay almost a $1 billion settlement for lying for Trump?
Have to ask Fox about that. But the big claim is Trump will end democracy while the DNC manages to get legacy media to do their heavy lifting and bury the laptop story. Those kind of actions are the real threat to democracy. DNC is counting on low information voters that watch shows like the View for information. The laptop story just highlights who they really are.
There is information in the laptop that confirms what the business partner has been saying for years. You know, the guy who had first hand knowledge because he was actually present when Biden himself was there doing business with Hunter and the other entities. Give me time and I will remember his name. He tried very much to be able to testify and there was great effort in preventing him from doing so.
Because joe said repeatedly that the Laptop didn't exist. Catching him in a big fat lie. Something they often accuse trump of. Its a show piece to illustrate the corruption within that admin right now. Its also to discredit the mainstream media.
I think you're wrong about Joe saying the laptop didn't exist.
Business partners that meet with Joey from Scranton even though Joey denies ever meeting them and 10% for the big guy
That would be incriminating if there is evidence that "the big guy" either requested or acknowledged receipt of the 10%.
As for meeting with people with whom Hunter was doing business, Joe has probably spent time with countless people at Hunter's request, both with whom Hunter was and was not doing business. In either event, Joe could simply be responding to "Dad, could you say hello to some friends of mine."
I'm not saying that the foregoing does not constitute evidence suggesting the former Vice President's involvement, but I still maintain that without more, it proves nothing.
Now I remember the name of the business partner. Tony Bobolinski. Undoubtably misspelled. He had first hand knowledge that "the big guy" was Biden himself, and that a certain percentage was to go to him.
First hand knowledge from Joe, or from Hunter?
Both.
What exactly did Joe say to Bobolinski?
Neil, you’re ignoring the point of Erick’s piece. Only one talking about Biden is you. Does it not bother you that the media lied over and over about this laptop?
Before responding, I wanted to refresh my recollection of how events transpired after the discovery of that laptop. Turns out that I had in fact forgotten that a group of 51 former senior intelligence officials who had served in four different administrations, including the Trump administration, released an open letter stating that the release of emails from the laptop "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." This is simply what the mainstream media chose to focus on. In doing so, they didn't lie. They simply emphasized that aspect of the story that was in conformity with their world view.
You might note that I termed them the "mainstream" media. That part of the media absolutely has a liberal/progressive bias. But are Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the conservatives that dominate AM radio not also "media?" I am working on a project that has acquainted me with the very early history of politics in this country. Bias in the media dates back to when Thomas Jefferson used one paper and Alexander Hamilton another to attack and defend, respectively, George Washington's policies. Fact is that from that time until about the 1900's newspapers (then of course, the only "media") were unabashedly partisan, making no pretense whatsoever at editorial objectivity. The media that you and I grew up with may have thought itself objective, but it never really was; which is why Fox News and conservative outlets came into being in the first place.
Indeed, I might ask that with Fox News having knowingly aired and promoted election fraud theories that they themselves did not even believe, does that not bother you? It doesn't really bother me that much because I consider bias in the media to be a given: always has been, always will be. The only thing new under the sun is the degree to which conservative like to whine about the bias of the other side. I mean, do you really not realize that Fox News et al, including Erick Erickson, have a conservative bias that affects what they say in the same way that liberal bias affects the NY Times?
All that said, if anything bothered me after Rudy Guliani (since disbarred, of course, basically for being dishonest) produced the laptop, it was the censorship of the story by the social media companies. There being only a few who are effectively in control of what has become the public square, my sense was: "You today, me tomorrow." This worries me a lot more than bias in the news media.
In closing, I would address a question that you did not actually ask: Does it bother me that Hunter's laptop got treated as Russian disinformation, when it wasn't? Well, does it bother you that the 2016 election quite arguably turned on the discovery of another laptop (Anthony Weiner's) that turned out to contain nothing of relevance?
"October surprises" aren't a very good way of picking a President.
I am almost certain "Neil McKenna" is either a shill account here or a progressive operative designed to be a foil for the propagandistas ahead of the election. No one is that willfully ignorant of the facts when confronted with this level of evidence.
Well let me clear it up for you.
I'm a Chicago Democrat who came out of the U.S. Army at the rank of Captain, became a lawyer and then spent three years on the staff of a Republican Lt. Governor. Generally speaking, my political perspective falls very, very close to that of Joe Scarborough, whom I believe only abandoned his Republican party identification with the advent of Donald Trump. More specifically, I believe that the Constitution intended that the federal government play a more limited role than has come to pass; that because government tends to be inherently inefficient, any government function that can be outsourced should be; that Democratic government in big cities has largely failed; that our inner cities require more rather than less policing; that Ronald Reagan won the cold war; that our military capabilities must remain preeminent in this world; and that with the possible exception of climate change, our national debt is fast becoming our biggest problem. Finally, I do not believe in a "living" constitution. In sum, on a great many issues, my perspective is much more conservative than liberal/progressive.
Above all, (as I think is substantiated by my military service ) I love this country - its rich and proud history in particular. And the thought of a perpetually lying, draft dodging, porn star schtuping, hush money-paying, convicted felon sitting in the same chair as was occupied by giants like Washington, Lincoln, the Roosevelts . . . and yes, Reagan . . . makes me want to scream!
So what am I doing here? Those three years spent looking at my own party from the other party's perspective taught me that all too often, Democrats are full of it. Moreover, as a general proposition, I find that I learn more from people with whom I disagree than from someone who already shares my perspective. Until it started simply lying to me (about the 2020 election having been stolen), I used to consume a lot more conservative media. Now, I mostly just follow Erich because he's no liar, hasn't completely "drunk the koolaid," and I can't help but respect someone who is sometimes able to convince me that I was wrong.
I have wondered about that.
You have to have a prosecutor that’s willing to go down that road and a FBI that’s willing to investigate right now you can get investigated for showing up at a school board meeting meeting yet be on a terror watch list and walk across the border with a court date sometime in the next century also you don’t aquire that much wealth being a public servant your whole adult life on the eastern seaboard where it is very expensive to live
If it wasn’t so serious and if it hadn’t caused so much damage it would be comical, but as it is, it makes me sick to my stomach.
I remember listening in real time as NPR “explained” why they didn’t bother to cover the laptop. That helped me decide I really didn’t need to listen to them anymore.
Those 50 or so who backed the a Russia mid-information story should have all security clearances cancelled. They are part of the problem, can’t people just be straight up honest?