Hunter Biden Trial Begins

[StoneTheCrow]

A light Wednesday night thread to read if anyone is interested in a quick trip down memory lane:

https://x.com/DrewHolden360/status/1801016724252188861

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-12-2024, 08:43 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I sleep good at night. You guys supporting the traitors? Idk

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/two-hours-mocking-arizonas-attorney-general-rudy-giuliani-served-birth-rcna152905

“Rudy Giuliani had been served with the notice of his indictment in connection with an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results in Arizona.”

Who is "you guys?"

Keep trying to label people or assume everyone who is voting for DJT is the same...

The pattern repeats itself...

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-12-2024, 08:48 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Works with Russian assets. Tries to over turn our countries democratic election.

Gets your full support….

Pitiful and disgusting

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-13-2024, 07:19 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Who is "you guys?"

Keep trying to label people or assume everyone who is voting for DJT is the same...

The pattern repeats itself...

.

[HarleyDog]

(06-13-2024, 09:04 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: .

Not even close. It was an attack at a corrupt system trying to steal our democracy. This was the sentiment at the time. Doesn't matter if that sentiment has changed since then. Too many or most, I don't think it has. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 08:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I knew about that one. I think the headline is a tad misleading, these 51 people did not make a definite statement, but rather made this infamous "it has the earmarks of Russian disinformation" claim. And I can not really disagree with that statement, it had these earmarks. It sure still was an error of judgment and I will not try to defend them from that accusation. Whether bias and a political preference played a part, well I don't know, my guess would be that it did and that sure deserves critizism too. But they did not exactly swear it was false, they stated clearly that they do not know that for a fact and "just" expressed their strong scepticism - and well, the information came from Rudy and imho that alone was reason enough to be deeply sceptical.

Also, Mr. Ratcliffe disagreed with the assessment, which was news to me. A curious thing is how the FBI allegedly investigated the possibility of a Russian disinformation campaign, which is indeed weird. But maybe possible at this point.



I have to admit I didn't learn much from this article, aside from the fact that Mr. Smirnov can not be seen as a reliable source and hence information from him has to be seen as tainted and that Russian misinformation campaings are ongoing. Assumptions I would see as justified. It sure touches on social media suppressing the WaPo article on the laptop, which was a wrong decision, possibly justifiable by what they were led to believe at this point. Or it's because they are all evil, which they sure are. Also, Mr. Blinken's role sure is curious. But no one swore publicly it was misinformation while knowing it was not.



OK, that one I actually only could read through the HTML code (weird that the Times does not realize one can do that, but whatever). So I might have overlooked things. But it seems the only one who claimed with authority that this was in fact a Russian ploy was Biden himself, citing the 51 officials who never made this definite claim and actually explicitly said they could not state it as fact. So it remains that as far as I can tell there's still no one, except Biden, that came close to swearing publicly that the laptop story was fake.

What you're essentially saying here is that the 51 "experts" left enough wiggle room to claim plausible deniability.  The problem is the real world doesn't work that way.  If you release publicly that something has all the earmarks of Russian disinformation you are saying to the general public that this is Russian disinformation.  Any intelligent person knows exactly how it will be perceived, and how it will be used by others like Joe Biden.

You could release a statement that Joe Biden has all the earmarks of a pedophile and then play clips of him sniffing kids, touching them in odd, even inappropriate ways and then referencing his daughter's diary (another incident of something lambasted as fake and later proven genuine) in which she writes that he would shower with her at a inappropriate age.  You could then reference the following.





https://archive.ph/s9bmE

But in so doing, I am not claiming that Joe Biden is a pedophile, just that his behavior has all the "earmarks" of a pedophile.  But do you think many people will come to any conclusion other than I am saying Joe Biden is a pedophile and here's the proof?

Hence my not being at all impressed by the "earmarks" argument or the plausible deniability claimed by using that term.

P.S. That youtube video is disturbing, I only included it to make a point.  I honestly can't watch it.  It's nothing against ToS, it's just creepy and gross and it skeeves me out.

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 11:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What you're essentially saying here is that the 51 "experts" left enough wiggle room to claim plausible deniability.

Yeah that's quite possible, I did not exactly defend them. If I were to guess, I would agree that it's fairly certain that there was an intention to help out Biden, and as I said, that deserves critizism.
What I'm also saying is that your statement how people "swore in public that the laptop was 100% fake" is not entirely accurate. It wasn't my intention to prove that, but I wanted to know if that is actually true.

The only issue where I would defend those people a little is that, well, it indeed had earmarks of Russian disinformation. The comparison with Biden and his weird behaviour towards children is semi-apt in my book, but I understand the point you're making. It's not like republicans did not do something similar to what you describe though, effectively calling him a pedophile by just stopping short of calling him a pedophile. Which is not a defense of Biden, oh my, I wish you had a president that doesn't sniff girl's hair. Amongst other things.

And I did not click the video, for I already know what Biden does and it grosses me out too. One could indeed say he has the earmarks of, well, at least someone with some unhealthy urges. I for one could not really fault you if you were to say so (and maybe you did, a little), while not believing Biden actually acts out on pedophilia.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2024, 11:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah that's quite possible, I did not exactly defend them. If I were to guess, I would agree that it's fairly certain that there was an intention to help out Biden, and as I said, that deserves critizism.
What I'm also saying is that your statement how people "swore in public that the laptop was 100% fake" is not entirely accurate. It wasn't my intention to prove that, but I wanted to know if that is actually true.

The only issue where I would defend those people a little is that, well, it indeed had earmarks of Russian disinformation. The comparison with Biden and his weird behaviour towards children is semi-apt in my book, but I understand the point you're making. It's not like republicans did not do something similar to what you describe though, effectively calling him a pedophile by just stopping short of calling him a pedophile. Which is not a defense of Biden, oh my, I wish you had a president that doesn't sniff girl's hair. Amongst other things.

And I did not click the video, for I already know what Biden does and it grosses me out too. One could indeed say he has the earmarks of, well, at least someone with some unhealthy urges. I for one could not really fault you if you were to say so (and maybe you did, a little), while not believing Biden actually acts out on pedophilia.

So we essentially agree, it's just a difference of degree.  I would say my assertion that they swore the laptop is 100% fake is a plausible as their claims, because that was very obviously, IMO, the intent of their joint statement.  And making it a joint statement is itself another feather in the cap of the claim that they knew exactly what they were doing.

[*pally*]

(06-13-2024, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So we essentially agree, it's just a difference of degree.  I would say my assertion that they swore the laptop is 100% fake is a plausible as their claims, because that was very obviously, IMO, the intent of their joint statement.  And making it a joint statement is itself another feather in the cap of the claim that they knew exactly what they were doing.

But they didnt swear it was 100% false.  They allowed for the possiblility that it was legit.  what they said, that in their experience the laptop and how it came to the world's attention had fingeprints of Russian intelligence

Dont forget that knowledge of this laptop didn't occur until Oct of 2020.  All that was known about it was stuff being thrown about by Guiliani and other Trump surrogate

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2024, 12:02 PM)pally Wrote: But they didnt swear it was 100% false.  They allowed for the possiblility that it was legit.  what they said, that in their experience the laptop and how it came to the world's attention had fingeprints of Russian intelligence

Dont forget that knowledge of this laptop didn't occur until Oct of 2020.  All that was known about it was stuff being thrown about by Guiliani and other Trump surrogate

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

I've already addressed this point several times.  This argument does not impress me at all.  Throw in an eagerly complicit media and you're making a distinction without a difference.

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So we essentially agree, it's just a difference of degree.  I would say my assertion that they swore the laptop is 100% fake is a plausible as their claims

So, not all that plausible :)

(06-13-2024, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: because that was very obviously, IMO, the intent of their joint statement.  And making it a joint statement is itself another feather in the cap of the claim that they knew exactly what they were doing.

Sure, I would bet on the same thing. But I don't know it for a fact. There's the issue that the overall concern expressed was far from made up and far from moot. Russia is still meddling in elections in many ways. If I were to blame folks, I would also blame Giuliani for having a well-earned reputation of being a blatant liar (or Trump for being so unsettling that folks retort to these means, but that's sure disputable), and in the end I'm still more angry at him than at these people. And though surprisingly no one asked me despite all my experience as an internet user, I might even have signed off on such a letter too (just to regret it later, of course). Nothing said in it is untrue. They even state that "we want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role" - and I get that sentiment.

That being said, it was still a mistake and most likely their intentions were partisan ones, it's just that I can not be all that mad about it really. In general, as stated I consider the laptop to be a tad blown out of proportion by right-wing pundits by now.

[Luvnit2]

(06-13-2024, 11:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah that's quite possible, I did not exactly defend them. If I were to guess, I would agree that it's fairly certain that there was an intention to help out Biden, and as I said, that deserves critizism.
What I'm also saying is that your statement how people "swore in public that the laptop was 100% fake" is not entirely accurate. It wasn't my intention to prove that, but I wanted to know if that is actually true.

The only issue where I would defend those people a little is that, well, it indeed had earmarks of Russian disinformation. The comparison with Biden and his weird behaviour towards children is semi-apt in my book, but I understand the point you're making. It's not like republicans did not do something similar to what you describe though, effectively calling him a pedophile by just stopping short of calling him a pedophile. Which is not a defense of Biden, oh my, I wish you had a president that doesn't sniff girl's hair. Amongst other things.

And I did not click the video, for I already know what Biden does and it grosses me out too. One could indeed say he has the earmarks of, well, at least someone with some unhealthy urges. I for one could not really fault you if you were to say so (and maybe you did, a little), while not believing Biden actually acts out on pedophilia.

Why would this not be considered fraud to impact the outcome of an election? I would argue this is 100X worse than what a liberal DA charged Trump with and won so far.

The 51 and also Biden may face charges someday along with Blinken who started the letter of 51. If they can go after Trump for something he did in 2018, it is conceivable they could a partisan Republican AG coud go after these giys in 2025.

[Luvnit2]

(06-13-2024, 12:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: So, not all that plausible :)



Sure, I would bet on the same thing. But I don't know it for a fact. There's the issue that the overall concern expressed was far from made up and far from moot. Russia is still meddling in elections in many ways. If I were to blame folks, I would also blame Giuliani for having a well-earned reputation of being a blatant liar (or Trump for being so unsettling that folks retort to these means, but that's sure disputable), and in the end I'm still more angry at him than at these people. And though surprisingly no one asked me despite all my experience as an internet user, I might even have signed off on such a letter too (just to regret it later, of course). Nothing said in it is untrue. They even state that "we want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role" - and I get that sentiment.

That being said, it was still a mistake and most likely their intentions were partisan ones, it's just that I can not be all that mad about it really. In general, as stated I consider the laptop to be a tad blown out of proportion by right-wing pundits by now.

Do you realize there is evidence of Hunter bribing people? Do you know there is evidence on the laptop Joe Biden, Jim Biden and others were involved in Hinter's influence peddling? Why do you feel this should not be investigated by an impartial outside special counsel? If innocent, just like the Russian collusion hoax, the Bidens will be cleared just as Trump was years ago.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2024, 12:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: So, not all that plausible :)

Exactly. 

Quote:Sure, I would bet on the same thing. But I don't know it for a fact. There's the issue that the overall concern expressed was far from made up and far from moot. Russia is still meddling in elections in many ways. If I were to blame folks, I would also blame Giuliani for having a well-earned reputation of being a blatant liar (or Trump for being so unsettling that folks retort to these means, but that's sure disputable), and in the end I'm still more angry at him than at these people. And though surprisingly no one asked me despite all my experience as an internet user, I might even have signed off on such a letter too (just to regret it later, of course). Nothing said in it is untrue. They even state that "we want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role" - and I get that sentiment.

That being said, it was still a mistake and most likely their intentions were partisan ones, it's just that I can not be all that mad about it really. In general, as stated I consider the laptop to be a tad blown out of proportion by right-wing pundits by now.

All true.  I do feel another factor needs to be considered here as well.  You correctly mentioned that people have made the Biden is a pedophile "earmark" argument in the past.  One of the major differences in these two claims is that the laptop deniers had a very willing and complicit media just aching to help disseminate their plausibly deniable Russian disinformation claim.  And it's fairly obvious to anyone who paid even a little attention that the media was all in on nailing Trump, and still is.

Given all the above I don't have a lot of patience with left leaning people trying to explain this away.  I am not including yourself, you certainly acknowledge the very real possibility this was done intentionally.  For most this is yet another claim they have to scramble and backtrack on, all the while claiming they never claimed what they claimed in the first place.  And that's a lot of claims.

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 12:38 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Do you realize there is evidence of Hunter bribing people? Do you know there is evidence on the laptop Joe Biden, Jim Biden and others were involved in Hinter's influence peddling? Why do you feel this should not be investigated by an impartial outside special counsel? If innocent, just like the Russian collusion hoax, the Bidens will be cleared just as Trump was years ago.

I did not say it should not be investigated.

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 12:34 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Why would this not be considered fraud to impact the outcome of an election? I would argue this is 100X worse than what a liberal DA charged Trump with and won so far.

The 51 and also Biden may face charges someday along with Blinken who started the letter of 51. If they can go after Trump for something he did in 2018, it is conceivable they could a partisan Republican AG coud go after these giys in 2025.

And what would you charge them for, exactly? For expressing their opinion in a letter? That is not conceivable, for first amendment reasons alone. No one charged Trump for falsely claiming he actually won in a lanslide were it not for fake ballots and corrupt election workers and the like either. Or you for still not rebutting said claims.

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 12:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All true.  I do feel another factor needs to be considered here as well.  You correctly mentioned that people have made the Biden is a pedophile "earmark" argument in the past.  One of the major differences in these two claims is that the laptop deniers had a very willing and complicit media just aching to help disseminate their plausibly deniable Russian disinformation claim.  And it's fairly obvious to anyone who paid even a little attention that the media was all in on nailing Trump, and still is.

You will get no argument from me on that one. Your major media outlets are all deeeply partisan and not exactly trustworthy. It's pretty disastrous and it's not like it's just the laptop story that brought that fact to light.

(06-13-2024, 12:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Given all the above I don't have a lot of patience with left leaning people trying to explain this away.

Well, I have, at least some. I also learned to have some patience with right leaning people explaining things away. It's what this whole coin-like system just does to people, when you more or less automatically help the other party and their stubborn apologets by admitting the flaws of your own side. And I get it - to a point. I might not behave much differently if I were actually an American.

(06-13-2024, 12:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am not including yourself, you certainly acknowledge the very real possibility this was done intentionally.  For most this is yet another claim they have to scramble and backtrack on, all the while claiming they never claimed what they claimed in the first place.  And that's a lot of claims.

Well, I sure dismissed the laptop story too, but I get your point. I know better now, it would be nice if more people could just state as much.

[Luvnit2]

(06-13-2024, 12:02 PM)pally Wrote: But they didnt swear it was 100% false.  They allowed for the possiblility that it was legit.  what they said, that in their experience the laptop and how it came to the world's attention had fingeprints of Russian intelligence

Dont forget that knowledge of this laptop didn't occur until Oct of 2020.  All that was known about it was stuff being thrown about by Guiliani and other Trump surrogate

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

This story was reported by NY Post reporter and buried by our government on social media. Their reason, it may be Russian disinformation. Fast forward to 2024 and we know the F.B.I., Hunter Biden and Joe Biden knew the laptop was Hunter's. The F.B.I. verified the laptop in 2019.

Our government tells social media to kill the NY Post story (which was 100% accurate). Then, Joe Biden uses this false narrative in a debate.

The NY post writer wrote a book, a best seller the Laptop from Hell. 

Biden and the DNC got away with killing the laptop story in 2020. But now it has come full circle, I do hope these 51 are dragged into court, forced to spend millions on defending themselves and are convicted for fraud. That would be justice.

You constantly say Trump lied, well Biden not only lies, but he also tells whoppers, and you give him a free pass. Why? If Trump upsets you, Biden should really tick you off?

[Luvnit2]

(06-13-2024, 12:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: And what would you charge them for, exactly? For expressing their opinion in a letter? That is not conceivable, for first amendment reasons alone. No one charged Trump for falsely claiming he actually won in a lanslide were it not for fake ballots and corrupt election workers and the like either. Or you for still not rebutting said claims.

In case you have not noticed, our country now attacks political opponents without real cases, but partisan with hunts. A conviction may never happen, but the cost the 51 and others would be a huge hit to them. Trump is a billionaire and will survive the financial hit. Will They? 

The GOP needs to find a fare right leaning court, far leaning right judge and far right leaning jury. Then go after them for election interference or do as they did in NY, never disclose the crimes until closing arguments.

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 01:19 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: In case you have not noticed, our country now attacks political opponents without real cases, but partisan with hunts. A conviction may never happen, but the cost the 51 and others would be a huge hit to them. Trump is a billionaire and will survive the financial hit. Will They? 

The GOP needs to find a fare right leaning court, far leaning right judge and far right leaning jury. Then go after them for election interference or do as they did in NY, never disclose the crimes until closing arguments.

Glad to see you're such a fighter for a fair and unpartisan justice system. You and Trump, you're really both not about retribution at all.

In fact, "without real cases" is just your interpretation that is solely fueled by your political affiliation. I for one don't see it that way and would bet that you would be the biggest fan of any trial if it targeted a Democrat instead of Trump. So yeah, even if what you allege were to be true, which it is not, you don't get to complain about it while demanding for the same thing to happen and are full of schadenfreude over some folks being possibly financially ruined in a sham trial. Great stuff.