that’s cute.
Because it was US policy and most of the western world also wanted him fired?
4 Likes
https://mobile.twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1546267015303815170
Flash to Joseph Robinette Biden on the Senate floor in the early 1990s:
If you have a piece of crack cocaine no bigger than this quarter that I’m holding in my hand, one quarter of one dollar, we passed the law - the leadership of Senator Thurmond and myself and others - a law that says you’re caught with that, you go to jail for 5 years. You get no probation, you get nothing other than 5 years in jail. Judge doesn’t have a choice.
This isn’t the “Democrats say the darndest things” thread. This is the Hunter Biden Investigation thread.
or wait, is it the “Hunter Biden says the darndest things”, or the “democrat investigation” thread, or well now I’m beginning to wonder if there is a difference. it all seems like the same thing.
As long as we’re in the “Hunter Biden says the darndest things” thread (or something like that), I have to wonder - how many of you have your dad labelled as Pedo Pete in your cell phone???
Pete Buttigieg is hot af, he can be my daddy any day
1 Like
Cool stories about Hunter Biden, Joe’s adult son. Maybe one day Hunter will run for office and you can use this information on deciding how to vote. I guess you can use it to decide that someone who raised a human that turned into Hunter Biden might be unfit for office. But again, unlike TFG, Biden’s son is not a top adviser in the White House, so ???
5 Likes
Sir, this is the Hunter Biden Investigation thread. We’re investigating his clearly illegal drug use and his daddy’s thoughts that he should go to jail for 5 years for it. Judge doesn’t have a choice.
How is this not more obviously /thread?
1 Like
A headline on CNN.com today.
Good.
Or, am I supposed to say, “No! Leave Prince Hunter alone you meanies!!!”
So his Dad can just pardon him for the federal stuff, right?
I guess not for Delaware crimes, but I assume that DE is run by Dems friendly with the Bidens, no?
You should say - “Wow, our media sources and tech companies overlords sure screwed up by not reporting and/or banning any conversation on this topic. Maybe those ‘conspiracy guys’ shouldn’t be dismissed so quickly”.
1 Like
Greenwald is a blowhard who has no problem spreading misinformation. I don’t think this is a slam dunk argument.
How would an innocent person act if a laptop full of fake information about them was going to be released. Would they celebrate the release of false information about them?
This is laughable. People have already pointed out several ways that it’s absurd.
lol
The Trump made millions and millions of dollars from foreign sources while their dad was president. WTF are you talking about?
I disagree. I think the majority of Trump’s corruption went unnoticed simply because there was so much of it.
Because it was the official policy position of the US State Department and had the support of European allies. What you are implying, is what we call a conspiracy theory without evidence.
Because Trump supporters are DESPERATE to show the guy they supported wasn’t an aberration of extreme corruption. They want to show that Biden is even worse than Trump in this category. It’s really stupid.
Oh, weird. The tech and media companies are investigating Hunter? Or is it the legal system doing its job and the media reaction is irrelevant?
However, if Biden pardons him, you will finally have something relevant! So maybe, just maybe, this laptop will pay off for you guys after all. Just not in the way you constantly hoped it would.
If Hunter broke the law in a meaningful way, then I hope he gets the proper punishments. It would be extremely problematic for Biden to pardon him as well.
3 Likes
They might actually come out and deny that the laptop and emails were real. They could gather evidence to show they were nowhere near that shop on the day the computer was supposed to have been dropped off.
Oddly enough none of that happened. Not even denying that the laptop was Hunter’s. All the Bidens did was point to a letter written by 50 intelligence experts saying that it had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation. Of course the experts had never actually seen any of the evidence directly so they were basing that on, what again?
Part of the problem is that nobody had seen it directly.
It was supposed to be explosive news before anyone knew what it was.
They may not have known whether the laptop was real, or whether some of the emails were real, etc.
The problem is that truth was never really the point of this story. It was just to stir up mistrust to make it easier to imagine that biden was as corrupt as trump clearly was.
It might as well have been asking Biden whether he was still beating his wife. It’s not a serious question.
If those emails turn out to be true, it doesn’t mean the papers should have reported it back then. At that point, it was just rumors.
The game had worked before, with hillary. Political players were just angry it didn’t work again. The rules were changed and it seemed unfair.
2 Likes
I see the problem. You don’t understand how things work. The right wing media machine doesn’t give two shits about the accuracy of the information they are presenting. They would happily push the narrative that everything in the laptop was legit, even if the Biden’s proved it wasn’t. It’s an impossible battle to win.
Probably because denying that the laptop was Hunter’s would be a lie, and this administration is less comfortable doing that than the previous one.
And are you claiming these intelligence experts made these claims based without having any information about the laptop? They just blindly said it looked like Russian propaganda? You know, these experts worked under Republican and Democratic presidents. They aren’t just Democratic agents. You can’t dismiss experts’ opinions just because it hurts your agenda.
If you actually want to learn about the discrepancies that make it look like the emails were clearly tampered with, here is the best layout of things I have found: Hunter Biden emails - Distributed Denial of Secrets
100% this
so then by your “rules for the media”, there should have been no reporting/discussion on the alleged “Russian Influence on the 2016 election” until after Mueller’s final report was released. Is that right?
1 Like
I disagree. But i don’t feel like litigating that here.