Only in America...

[Rasenimp]

Why don't they name the big guy and put the fire out. Repeat ad nauseum.

Still smoke though isnt it. One line that was "10 held by h for the big guy" and the later email was that the chairman said 'no' to whatever the deal was. A deal that didn't happen.

Years of watching cranks talking about it and there's still no substance or evidence, just basically repetition ad nauseum of... nothing, and claiming its a conspiracy that everyone isn't talking about it like it's the most important thing on earth. If you have something new or useful, happy to see it! I don't trust hunter biden and I don't like Joe and would rather there was a decent democrat president... but I'd also rather stick to some level of fact not innuendo.

 

[hulloutpost]

Still smoke though isnt it. One line that was "10 held by h for the big guy" and the later email was that the chairman said 'no' to whatever the deal was. A deal that didn't happen.

Years of watching cranks talking about it and there's still no substance or evidence, just basically repetition ad nauseum of... nothing, and claiming its a conspiracy that everyone isn't talking about it like it's the most important thing on earth. If you have something new or useful, happy to see it! I don't trust hunter biden and I don't like Joe and would rather there was a decent democrat president... but I'd also rather stick to some level of fact not innuendo.

Just like the lap top was a Russian conspiracy then

I wonder who really started the conspiracy game on this particular subject

Bit rich really innit. The people who started the conspiracy, calling it a conspiracy by the other lot.

 

[Rasenimp]

Just like the lap top was a Russian conspiracy then

I wonder who really started the conspiracy game on this particular subject

Bit rich really innit. The people who started the conspiracy, calling it a conspiracy by the other lot.

Points scoring.

Joe Biden said in Oct 2020 that he'd never received money from foreign sources and there hasn't been evidence since just innuendo and cranks suggesting otherwise but stopping short of ever having the proof. Plenty of people have had the laptop contents who don't like Joe Biden including Trump's lawyer. There's never been the evidence so we just go round in circles to Shokin or Burisma or the big guy but it never gets past hot air.

Do you have any evidence that what Joe Biden said in Oct 2020 is a lie in this case and the laptop proves otherwise (yes or no) or are we going to try and score some other irrelevant point or say 'big guy' or something and feel like we've won?

 

[hulloutpost]

Points scoring.

Joe Biden said in Oct 2020 that he'd never received money from foreign sources and there hasn't been evidence since just innuendo and cranks suggesting otherwise but stopping short of ever having the proof. Plenty of people have had the laptop contents who don't like Joe Biden including Trump's lawyer. There's never been the evidence so we just go round in circles to Shokin or Burisma or the big guy but it never gets past hot air.

Do you have any evidence that what Joe Biden said in Oct 2020 is a lie in this case and the laptop proves otherwise (yes or no) or are we going to try and score some other irrelevant point or say 'big guy' or something and feel like we've won?

Do you have any proof it's not the case. I think you will find that 'plenty' of other people are not the investigating bodies that have legal access to things like, oh I don't know - court warrants, that would allow the contents of the lap top to be investigated legally and in full.

It's therefore unfortunate (I can be generous in my choice of words at times) that the people who have the legal authority to fully investigate said lap top are the ones that lied about it from the get go until they no longer could, hid it away for as long as they could when they could no longer lie about it until the DOJ whistle blower, and then tried to shut it and all future investigations into the lap top down with the plea deal to end all plea deals. Those are all facts and not conspiracies btw.

It must just be cynical old me that sees something a little awry by that unfortunate set of circumstances.

 

[Rasenimp]

Do you have any proof it's not the case. I think you will find that 'plenty' of other people are not the investigating bodies that have legal access to things like, oh I don't know fizer warrants, that would allow the contents of the lap top to be investigated legally and in full.

It's therefore unfortunate (I can be generous in my choice of words at times) that the people who have the legal authority to fully investigate said lap top are the ones that lied about it from the get go until they no longer could, hid it away for as long as they could when they could no longer lie about it, and then tried to shut it and all future investigations into the lap top down with the plea deal to end all plea deals. Those are all facts and not conspiracies btw.

It must just be cynical old me that sees something just a little awry by that unfortunate set of circumstances.

So the answer was no. Do you have proof it 'wasn't the case'... yeah because thats how this kind of thing works! You're posting Hannity talking about stuff anyone with 5 mins and Google can debunk (and could debunk three years ago!) and going "there are none so blind as those that will not see."

I want to see! Show me the truth? Oh I don't have anything. I think it's fishy but I don't have any evidence, bit more bluster, fin.

 

[hulloutpost]

So the answer was no. Do you have proof it 'wasn't the case'... yeah because thats how this kind of thing works! You're posting Hannity talking about stuff anyone with 5 mins and Google can debunk (and could debunk three years ago!) and going "there are none so blind as those that will not see."

I want to see! Show me the truth? Oh I don't have anything. I think it's fishy but I don't have any evidence, bit more bluster, fin.

Going round in circles time. If those who have the legal authority to investigate choose to cover it up and shut it down (fact) and don't allow it to be investigated how can you get to the truth.

The question stands, who is the big guy and why has he not been named.

 

[Rasenimp]

Going round in circles time. If those who have the legal authority to investigate choose to cover it up and shut it down (fact) and don't allow it to be investigated how can you get to the truth.

The question stands, who is the big guy and why has he not been named.

Look, I know you've got nothing, because if you had you aren't posting Hannity on Shokin in 2023 as if you've suddenly got a smoking gun. There's still nothing that implicates Joe Biden and you can't wish it so by shitposting.

 

[hulloutpost]

Look, I know you've got nothing, because if you had you aren't posting Hannity on Shokin in 2023 as if you've suddenly got a smoking gun. There's still nothing that implicates Joe Biden and you can't wish it so by shitposting.

You appear to be unable to grasp the simple concept that the lap top and it's evidence cannot be legally and forensically followed through if the people that should be enabling that are preventing it from being done.

The big guy exists, who is he and why has he not been named by those that could. It is a perfectly reasonable question and one that demands an answer.

 

[hulloutpost]

Anyway, time for a musical break. A couple of bangin' American Tunes for some half time entertainment

 

[Rasenimp]

You appear to be unable to grasp the simple concept that the lap top and it's evidence cannot be legally and forensically followed through if the people that should be enabling that are preventing it from being done.

The big guy exists, who is he and why has he not been named by those that could. It is a perfectly reasonable question and one that demands an answer.

It's very silly though as you're like 'there are none so blind as those that will not see', present nonsense from fox news and then go... 'actually there is nothing to see, but there could be! Can you prove there isn't?' And then think that's a solid position and you're the rational bulwark against idiots.

The big guy bit - refer to post #1,421.

The analysis bit - is really all we are clinging on to that the FBI or whoever haven't published everything about an investigation into it? Bannon, Giuliani, Trump have apparently seen it, there's evidence of oodles of copies of it (with dubious chains of custody it has to be said) and there was republican oversight committee investigation and a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees and still *not* found the fire.

It seems like it's almost better to keep eluding to it in vague ways and rehash Shokin and Burisma and keep it as a stick to beat the Bidens with than it would have been to actually conclude another investigation.

 

[hulloutpost]

It's very silly though as you're like 'there are none so blind as those that will not see', present nonsense from fox news and then go... 'actually there is nothing to see, but there could be! Can you prove there isn't?' And then think that's a solid position and you're the rational bulwark against idiots.

The big guy bit - refer to post #1,421.

The analysis bit - is really all we are clinging on to that the FBI or whoever haven't published everything about an investigation into it? Bannon, Giuliani, Trump have seen it, there's evidence of oodles of copies of it, and there was republican oversight committee investigation and a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees and still *not* found the fire.

It seems like it's almost better to keep eluding to it in vague ways and rehash Shokin and Burisma and keep it as a stick to beat the Bidens with than it would have been to actually conclude another investigation.

Would that be the oversight committee where the FBI denied to the Republican chair about knowing where the computer they were in possession of was, or are you referring to another one.

World of difference between seeing something and having the authority or legal mechanism to do something about it. For context, speaking from personal experience I have been politely denied assistance from GCHQ at Cheltenham on the basis that to carry out the request would undermine or frustrate national interests so don't even think about telling me that sort of thing doesn't go on.

Who is the big guy and why hasn't he been named.

 

[Rasenimp]

Would that be the oversight committee where the FBI denied to the Republican chair about knowing where the computer they were in possession of was, or are you referring to another one.

World of difference between seeing something and having the authority or legal mechanism to do something about it. For context, speaking from personal experience I have been politely denied assistance from GCHQ at Cheltenham on the basis that to carry out the request would undermine or frustrate national interests so don't even think about telling me that sort of thing doesn't go on.

Who is the big guy and why hasn't he been named.

But is your position really that Bannon got this from Giuliani, pitched it to the NY post, the NY post milked it for all it was worth, posted loads of it, other right wing websites and press splashed on it, the contents were all over the internet but it was all smoke related to Biden and they just omitted the fire because of legal authority or something? Why would anyone in that circle hold back the crucial evidence?

At the moment your argument is, the absence of the evidence is the evidence, checkmate...

 

[hulloutpost]

But is your position really that Bannon got this from Giuliani, pitched it to the NY post, the NY post milked it for all it was worth, posted loads of it, other right wing websites and press splashed on it, the contents were all over the internet but it was all smoke related to Biden and they just omitted the fire because of legal authority or something? Why would anyone in that circle hold back the crucial evidence?

At the moment your argument is, the absence of the evidence is the evidence, checkmate...

No my position in simple terms is:
The lap top is real (fact.)
The big guy exists (fact).
The people who can lawfully investigate the lap top have been proven to have lied about it's authenticity, denied knowledge of where it was, and tried to permanently shut down any future investigation into it's contents via the ill fated plea deal (facts).
At no time has anybody beyond those proven to be bad actors in their custody of the lap top (FBI or DOJ) allowed or authorised an independent body to conduct forensic investigations into joining the dots between Hunter and the identity of the big guy (fact); conversely they have tried to prevent such measures as evidenced by the oversight committee shenanigans.
The authorities have not (fact) and seemingly will not name the big guy under any circumstances.
The identity of the big guy and links to offending can only be joined by following the trail of emails, telephone numbers, bank accounts etc. which is demonstrably being frustrated.


If people 'in that circle' as you refer to them are denied the legal authority to investigate the identity of email addresses, bank accounts, shell companies, and telephone numbers etc. to identify the big guy themselves, or alternatively be provided a simple answer to the question 'who is the big guy' by those that can do so, then the investigation remains incomplete.

Why that is the case is a perfectly reasonable, yet unanswered simple question and whilst you can call it smoke, I see a factual based chronology highly indicative of a concerted and sustained policy of preventing the identity of the big guy and his involvement being brought before the public domain.

 

[Rasenimp]

"Factual evidence based chronology" when you post the Hannity stuff and are full of credulity seems a bit ridiculous, but here we are.

For the 'big guy' stuff being repeated over and over again, and in case anyone is interested but has a life so doesn't want to go down the rabbit hole of this stuff with all the innuendo and soundbites but none of the substance... it's probably the most damning e-mail of the thousands of e-mails. Here's what we know (let's try a factual evidence based chronology for size then, rather than just soundbites)

A former business associate of Hunter (James Gilliar) wrote about the distribution of money following a deal with a Chinese company, to Hunter and Tony Bobulinski with the subject line "Expectations".

It said

"20 H
20 RW
20 JG
20 TB
10 Jim
10 held by H for the big guy?"

Jim and the big guy weren't identified. It would make sense I'd have to concede (take note that it is possible to do this), and Fox News and co have heavily gone for it, that the big guy is Joe Biden and Jim is Jim Biden (Hunter's uncle/Joe's brother).

Except no such deal went through. A follow up e-mail from Hunter said that it was an 'emphatic no' from the 'chairman' who has been identified by Joe Biden. So at best here, the smoking gun is that Joe Biden refused a deal that Hunter's business associate e-mailed about.

And Joe Biden wasn't in office at the time of the e-mail (2017), wasn't VP, was 2 years away from announcing he'd run for president... so would be a private citizen and it's unclear what a charge would be if Joe Biden was written in the e-mail (there's still no evidence he was involved, nothing in all the e-mails to suggest he profited from anything). It kind of makes sense if Joe could have been in on a deal at this point without the political noise, that someone else would suggest money for him. But the deal didn't happen and he didn't get any money anyway?

It just seems to be smoke that doesn't go anywhere - at no point is there evidence Joe Biden got any money from shady Hunter business deals and if you prove the 'big guy' is Joe Biden which apparently is the smoking gun that needs investigating ... you get to a deal that... didn't happen.

I'm sure this will then be "what about" this next thing, but the fact remains a lot of this was embarrassing for Hunter, he had a job he shouldn't have had and wouldn't have had without his name, had some dubious business contacts, is a recovering drug addict, had his private life splashed everywhere... but nothing implicated the president, never has, and this has been going for three years. What would you even be investigating in the above?

 

[hulloutpost]

"Factual evidence based chronology" when you post the Hannity stuff and are full of credulity seems a bit ridiculous, but here we are.

For the 'big guy' stuff being repeated over and over again, and in case anyone is interested but has a life so doesn't want to go down the rabbit hole of this stuff with all the innuendo and soundbites but none of the substance... it's probably the most damning e-mail of the thousands of e-mails. Here's what we know (let's try a factual evidence based chronology for size then, rather than just soundbites)

A former business associate of Hunter (James Gilliar) wrote about the distribution of money following a deal with a Chinese company, to Hunter and Tony Bobulinski with the subject line "Expectations".

It said

"20 H
20 RW
20 JG
20 TB
10 Jim
10 held by H for the big guy?"

Jim and the big guy weren't identified. It would make sense I'd have to concede (take note that it is possible to do this), and Fox News and co have heavily gone for it, that the big guy is Joe Biden and Jim is Jim Biden (Hunter's uncle/Joe's brother).

Except no such deal went through. A follow up e-mail from Hunter said that it was an 'emphatic no' from the 'chairman' who has been identified by Joe Biden. So at best here, the smoking gun is that Joe Biden refused a deal that Hunter's business associate e-mailed about.

And Joe Biden wasn't in office at the time of the e-mail (2017), wasn't VP, was 2 years away from announcing he'd run for president... so would be a private citizen and it's unclear what a charge would be if Joe Biden was written in the e-mail (there's still no evidence he was involved, nothing in all the e-mails to suggest he profited from anything). It kind of makes sense if Joe could have been in on a deal at this point without the political noise, that someone else would suggest money for him. But the deal didn't happen and he didn't get any money anyway?

It just seems to be smoke that doesn't go anywhere - at no point is there evidence Joe Biden got any money from shady Hunter business deals and if you prove the 'big guy' is Joe Biden which apparently is the smoking gun that needs investigating ... you get to a deal that... didn't happen.

I'm sure this will then be "what about" this next thing, but the fact remains a lot of this was embarrassing for Hunter, he had a job he shouldn't have had and wouldn't have had without his name, had some dubious business contacts, is a recovering drug addict, had his private life splashed everywhere... but nothing implicated the president, never has, and this has been going for three years. What would you even be investigating in the above?

Now who's joining dots to make something fit a story they would like.

So Hunter never went on an official VP trip to China with his Dad then, and his Dad was never photographed with Hunter's business associates; you know the ones he had never discussed Hunter's business dealings with, or his son for that matter. Ok if that is your level of denial, I get where you are coming from.

We started going round in circles many posts back and we are not going to alter our positions, so I'll leave it that I've made the points I wanted to.

The floor is yours.

 

[Rasenimp]

Now who's joining dots to make something fit a story they would like.

So Hunter never went on an official VP trip to China with his Dad then, and his Dad was never photographed with Hunter's business associates; you know the ones he had never discussed Hunter's business dealings with, or his son for that matter. Ok if that is your level of denial, I get where you are coming from.

We started going round in circles many posts back and we are not going to alter our positions, so I'll leave it that I've made the points I wanted to.

The floor is yours.

I said what came back would be would be "what about what about" and your response is that, again! You kept saying about the big guy so I played that line and you move on straight away. I don't even know what the joining the dots bit means - seeing as it's literally what happened and the e-mails I used are from the hostile NY Post articles - which bit of that timeline do you dispute and say I'm making into a story I would like?

The debate doesn't go so much in circles, more that you don't want to talk about any detail. That's why you post stuff like the Hannity video then don't want to talk about it anymore, because it's ridiculous and doesn't stand up to any scrutiny - and pretty clear evidence your arguments aren't in good faith. I'll actually play ball and play the points (you should try it) as I enjoy it and it's my coffee break:

So Hunter never went on an official VP trip to China with his Dad then,

So this is a different point to the laptop but the Bidens did go to China in 2013. It's not exactly a secret seeing as they appeared publicly on the streets of Beijing and there were reporters on Air Force One on the trip. And I'm not sure why it's written as if I'm denying he went to China with him as if that is also a smoking gun.

Details of what Hunter Biden was doing are unclear, but Joe Biden's itinerary was documented. I know you'd like to make it appear that this was all a shady Joe business trip but it included 5 and a half hours of talking to Xi Jinping, photographers taking pics of the Bidens going through markets and gift shops in Beijing... and there's loads of articles from the media at that time in Dec 2013 on the talks/diplomacy happening, official vids, documentation of the various meetings that happened on the .gov website etc.

It's more innuendo and association but also more nothing - unless you have something I don't know about.

and his Dad was never photographed with Hunter's business associates; you know the ones he had never discussed Hunter's business dealings with, or his son for that matter.

Again, it's not the laptop and the photographs amount to a similar level as the left use on Twitter of 'here's Piers Morgan and Margaret Thatcher with Jimmy Saville, they're also both nonces'. I am absolutely not disputing that Hunter used his dad to get jobs and show he had influence. But trying to paint any contact between Joe and Hunter's business associates = crime is such weak ground, especially when your smoking gun above is 'big guy' and an e-mail trail that shows Joe Biden wasn't in on the deal and said no to it. It's not exactly thrilling stuff is it?

Even Fox News / Rep Biggs acknowledged when talking up evidence of conversations between Joe Biden and Hunter's business associates (another apparent smoking gun) that "the substance of the conversations were pleasantries". And the same witness saying he was never involved in actual dealings and it was always just hellos. ""As he described it, it was all casual niceties, the weather, what's going on," Goldman added. "There wasn't a single conversation about any of the business dealings that Hunter had." Thrilling, corruption of the highest order, again.

Isn't it a bit sad at this point? Years and years and it's still but what about Shokin, oh no that's bollocks, what about this one e-mail, oh that doesn't say what Conservatives would like it to say if you talk about it in more detail than a soundbite, what about this phone call (the one where the witness says he wasn't in on a deal). Just seems desperate and sad. The laptop never had evidence of Joe Biden accepting any money from anyone, and republicans would have shown it if it did. Constantly wishing it did hasn't worked for three years and won't now.

 

[hulloutpost]

Footage speaks for itself really and volumes about the current status of blue state American cities.

Try that in a small town? Well, not applicable; people in a small town don't behave like that do they.

 

[Sincilbanks]

Footage speaks for itself really and volumes about the current status of blue state American cities.

Try that in a small town? Well, not applicable; people in a small town don't behave like that do they.

On the other hand....

More than 50 arrested following night of looting throughout Philly, mayor says

Large crowds, mostly consisting of adults, looted multiple stores in Center City Tuesday night, including Foot Locker, the Apple store and Lululemon. Police say it had nothing to do with protest for Eddie Irizarry.

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

Philadelphia police chief says rioting had nothing to do with peaceful protest carried out earlier...
“These were not protesters, these were criminals," Stanford said.

And you do know about the history of Philadelphia and it's riot's right? It's a standing joke in the US...

They rioted when the Eagles won the Superbowl and they rioted when their team lost the Superbowl...

 

[hulloutpost]

On the other hand....

More than 50 arrested following night of looting throughout Philly, mayor says

Large crowds, mostly consisting of adults, looted multiple stores in Center City Tuesday night, including Foot Locker, the Apple store and Lululemon. Police say it had nothing to do with protest for Eddie Irizarry.

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

Philadelphia police chief says rioting had nothing to do with peaceful protest carried out earlier...
“These were not protesters, these were criminals," Stanford said.

And you do know about the history of Philadelphia and it's riot's right? It's a standing joke in the US...

They rioted when the Eagles won the Superbowl and they rioted when their team lost the Superbowl...

That makes it alright then

Not reading anything into it, simply as aforementioned observing that the footage speaks volumes about the absolutely wonderful quality of life and regular behaviour experienced in a number of 'blue' cities across the states.

Anyway, they only have themselves to blame. They voted for it (you know, things like defund the police, de criminalising shop lifting and the routine bailing of violent and dangerous criminals) and it is self inflicted. And they wonder why one of the cities (San Francisco I think from memory) is contemplating having to set up state run shops as retailers go 'f. this, we're outta here'. I'm talking about supermarkets for the basics of life btw, not Gucci outlets.

One way to get socialism in through the back door I guess. Enjoy queuing for your bread served from within an armour plated bunker.

 

[DonnyImp]

America!........ Land of the Free!!!!!!.......specially if you riot for it!.