Bill Barr and his October Surprise

TahiniBinShawarma said:
Nope, didn't evade, it's your memory and comprehension problem, not mine.

"This has nothing to do with the election"

Is your original statement I responded to. Now you are switching it to "how is it connected to the Biden campaign."
Click to expand...
*Shrugs*. That question wasn't directed to you; someone else said this would be easy for the campaign to disprove. I wondered why that poster specified that proof should come from the "campaign" vs. Hunter or Joe Biden. They didn't answer. You expressed surprise that I would ask that question, but then would not say why you were surprised. Now I see the game you're playing: It's not related to the campaign per se but is still related to the election. The timing certainly supports that interpretation.

Maybe in future you could let others answer for themselves? It could save a lot of pointless semantic confusion, but then again, pointless semantic confusion may be what you're going for.


TahiniBinShawarma said:
Those are two different things. I evaded nothing. It has nothing to do with the Biden campaign, this all happened way before any Biden for President campaign.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the poster I was addressing seemed to think the campaign itself should be offering proof even though the campaign did not exist at the time of the alleged scandal.

TahiniBinShawarma said:
If you think that supposed emails in the hand of the the former VP's son getting funny money from China and sharing it with his dad isn't going to sway some voters, keep kidding yourself on that is all I have to say.
Click to expand...
OK. So do you agree that it is up to the campaign itself to disprove the narrative, even though the campaign didn't exist at the time? And no, I don't think this is going to sway a meaningful number of voters. IMO there's a reason this weird leaked laptop story was not fast-tracked for FBI investigation: Because it's ridiculous. Here's a hard drive, trust me, it's been sitting in my shop and I've already cloned it 4 times so you guys can have it. It's Hunter Biden's, even though I can't testify that it's really Hunter Biden's, but that was my impression which is good enough, right? Also, I don't remember whether I called the FBI or they called me. It was all so long ago ...

TahiniBinShawarma said:
I heard you same people blame Comey for exonerating Clinton a few days before the election for Trump's win 4 years ago.
Click to expand...
You don't know jack about what I said 4 years ago re: Comey's surprise discovery of HRC emails on a laptop of questionable provenance and his co-called "exoneration" a few days later. It's uncanny how Trump et al. come back with ... surprise discoveries of Hunter Biden emails on a laptop of questionable provenance.

TahiniBinShawarma said:
You think they aren't going to drip this Biden stuff? You think this has nothing to do with the election?
Click to expand...
"They" (and who is "they"?) may well drip "this Biden stuff" but gut feeling, it's not going to change anyone's mind because the Trump spawn themselves are openly involved in their own questionable deals peddling access to Daddy. Grown adults trying to cash in on Daddy's influence isn't necessarily a huge scandal. Besides which, I wouldn't be surprised if the Hunter Biden stuff turns out to be a few authentic emails larded with purported scandals that are completely made up. There's a reason the FBI didn't jump all over this stuff. I mean, Trump has been trying to use his presidential power right and left to chase political enemies and he keeps coming up empty. I don't think this one will bear much fruit either. Fox calling it a bombshell does not a bombshell make. But, as always, I could be wrong.

TahiniBinShawarma said:
Or do you realize your snark about me "evading" was misplaced because you can't remember what you said?
Click to expand...
See above. You never answered my question, which was (paraphrase), "Why should it up to the campaign to rebut these allegations?" But that's OK; I never really expected a straight answer to begin with. Meanwhile I think you should be happy, because your tactics are pretty decent, depending of course on your goal, which I think is to get earnest people like myself deeply enmeshed and wasting energy trying to get you to see reason. Certainly I've fallen for it.
 
Last edited:
I heard it described as if the Watergate tapes were found a year later in the pocket of a jacket that someone had dropped off at a dry-cleaners and then didn't return to collect, and that it was assumed that the jacket belonged to Nixon because it had a Nixon pin on the lapel.
 
TahiniBinShawarma said:
Did they come back with an alien hard drive with pictures of the aliens smoking meth? It didn't say in your link.
Click to expand...

Where exactly are the hard drives with the proof that they were from Hunter Biden’s computer? Who has read off the alleged Hunter files on it? Where are the the files from it now? What exactly do they say?

You’ve been asked these same same questions upthread multiple without adequately responding. Whereas the alien abduction stories have actual photos of the abducted people, people willing to provide their real names! Some photos have images of clawed aliens in them! They have named names, not referred vaguely “the Big Guy.” There is no comparison in terms of actual documentation!
 
Minoosh said:
*Shrugs*. That question wasn't directed to you; someone else said this would be easy for the campaign to disprove. I wondered why that poster specified that proof should come from the "campaign" vs. Hunter or Joe Biden.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you mean me? Saying that it "should be easy for the campaign to disprove" is a completely different claim to saying that the campaign should disprove it. It's clearly their choice. I think I said before, they could be waiting for a more strategic moment to disprove this.

Minoosh said:
Yes, but the poster I was addressing seemed to think the campaign itself should be offering proof even though the campaign did not exist at the time of the alleged scandal.
Click to expand...
What? Biden's campaign want Biden to win. If people are claiming there are emails proving wrong doing of their candidate, but those emails are fabricated... it seems like they might have some interest in proving it. They don't have to, obviously. Are we thinking that Hunter Biden won't cooperate with them in proving the emails are faked?

This idea that it isn't the campaign's job to respond to accusations of things their candidate did, or is accused of doing, prior to the campaign is insane. Aren't most negative stories about the ethics of candidates about things they did prior to the start of the campaign? If the Trump campaign respond to a claim about Trump's tax returns, it's not because the campaign were involved in the tax returns, it's because it's a negative story about their candidate.
 
Minoosh said:
*Shrugs*. That question wasn't directed to you; someone else said this would be easy for the campaign to disprove. I wondered why that poster specified that proof should come from the "campaign" vs. Hunter or Joe Biden. They didn't answer. You expressed surprise that I would ask that question, but then would not say why you were surprised. Now I see the game you're playing: It's not related to the campaign per se but is still related to the election. The timing certainly supports that interpretation.

Maybe in future you could let others answer for themselves? It could save a lot of pointless semantic confusion, but then again, pointless semantic confusion may be what you're going for.


Yes, but the poster I was addressing seemed to think the campaign itself should be offering proof even though the campaign did not exist at the time of the alleged scandal.

OK. So do you agree that it is up to the campaign itself to disprove the narrative, even though the campaign didn't exist at the time? And no, I don't think this is going to sway a meaningful number of voters. IMO there's a reason this weird leaked laptop story was not fast-tracked for FBI investigation: Because it's ridiculous. Here's a hard drive, trust me, it's been sitting in my shop and I've already cloned it 4 times so you guys can have it. It's Hunter Biden's, even though I can't testify that it's really Hunter Biden's, but that was my impression which is good enough, right? Also, I don't remember whether I called the FBI or they called me. It was all so long ago ...

You don't know jack about what I said 4 years ago re: Comey's surprise discovery of HRC emails on a laptop of questionable provenance and his co-called "exoneration" a few days later. It's uncanny how Trump et al. come back with ... surprise discoveries of Hunter Biden emails on a laptop of questionable provenance.

"They" (and who is "they"?) may well drip "this Biden stuff" but gut feeling, it's not going to change anyone's mind because the Trump spawn themselves are openly involved in their own questionable deals peddling access to Daddy. Grown adults trying to cash in on Daddy's influence isn't necessarily a huge scandal. Besides which, I wouldn't be surprised if the Hunter Biden stuff turns out to be a few authentic emails larded with purported scandals that are completely made up. There's a reason the FBI didn't jump all over this stuff. I mean, Trump has been trying to use his presidential power right and left to chase political enemies and he keeps coming up empty. I don't think this one will bear much fruit either. Fox calling it a bombshell does not a bombshell make. But, as always, I could be wrong.

See above. You never answered my question, which was (paraphrase), "Why should it up to the campaign to rebut these allegations?" But that's OK; I never really expected a straight answer to begin with. Meanwhile I think you should be happy, because your tactics are pretty decent, depending of course on your goal, which I think is to get earnest people like myself deeply enmeshed and wasting energy trying to get you to see reason. Certainly I've fallen for it.
Click to expand...


Oh whatever. I quoted you verbatim up thread, if you didn't want to answer you didn't have to. Instead you changed the quote to something you never said that I never asked about. Hell, you pushed the issue even after I quoted you and said never mind, that I didn't care.

You're right, it's not about the election at all, has nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
I'm assuming you mean me? Saying that it "should be easy for the campaign to disprove" is a completely different claim to saying that the campaign should disprove it. It's clearly their choice. I think I said before, they could be waiting for a more strategic moment to disprove this.


What? Biden's campaign want Biden to win. If people are claiming there are emails proving wrong doing of their candidate, but those emails are fabricated... it seems like they might have some interest in proving it. They don't have to, obviously. Are we thinking that Hunter Biden won't cooperate with them in proving the emails are faked?

This idea that it isn't the campaign's job to respond to accusations of things their candidate did, or is accused of doing, prior to the campaign is insane. Aren't most negative stories about the ethics of candidates about things they did prior to the start of the campaign? If the Trump campaign respond to a claim about Trump's tax returns, it's not because the campaign were involved in the tax returns, it's because it's a negative story about their candidate.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm told by someone far smarter than me that this Russian disinformation would never sway any significant amount of votes. And of course "This has nothing to do with the election" so.....tough luck on getting an answer from the campaign Pal.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Stands to reason, given that it's likely Russian disinformation, being propagated at a time when it's known the Russians are propagating disinformation about Biden, spread by someone dishonest with open connections to known Russian intelligence agents, who has previously disseminated Russian disinformation. Just last year the US intelligence agencies warned the White House that Giuliani was peddling Russian disinformation.

Who cares what the actual claims are? They're almost certainly ********. The provenance of the claims is much more interesting.
Click to expand...

"Likely" from "unnamed sources" gotcha.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I heard it described as if the Watergate tapes were found a year later in the pocket of a jacket that someone had dropped off at a dry-cleaners and then didn't return to collect, and that it was assumed that the jacket belonged to Nixon because it had a Nixon pin on the lapel.
Click to expand...

Back to reading Seth Abramson again?
 
shuttlt said:
I'm assuming you mean me? Saying that it "should be easy for the campaign to disprove" is a completely different claim to saying that the campaign should disprove it. It's clearly their choice. I think I said before, they could be waiting for a more strategic moment to disprove this.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how to disprove a screenshot of an email that someone else wrote?
 
Minoosh said:
"They" (and who is "they"?) may well drip "this Biden stuff" but gut feeling, it's not going to change anyone's mind...
Click to expand...

The strategy seems to be a two-step process. 1: Keep pushing a weird story about e-mails, never saying anything specifically damning, but using lots of buzzwords like "scandal" and "smoking gun." 2: Complain like hell when the mainstream media doesn't pick it up.

To my knowledge, only one person is falling for it.
 
shuttlt said:
I'm assuming you mean me? Saying that it "should be easy for the campaign to disprove" is a completely different claim to saying that the campaign should disprove it. It's clearly their choice. I think I said before, they could be waiting for a more strategic moment to disprove this.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've given your proposal very much consideration. Allow me to illustrate. I am going to make a claim, and just so it's 100% clear, the following is not an accusation, but an attempt at establishing a principle:

3 years ago, I sent you (shuttlt) an e-mail thanking you for the very high quality heroin you sold me.

Please tell me how you would go about proving that the e-mail described above was never actually sent to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom