Bill Barr and his October Surprise

The Greater Fool said:
The companies involved have no skin in the game at the moment. They open their mouths and they open themselves from attack from one or both sides.

Not worth it.
Click to expand...
How admirably neutral of them. I'm sure, just like everybody else they have minimal interest in who wins the election. It's a pity that the Democrats don't have more influence in DC.
 
The Greater Fool said:
Amazingly, GOP aren't jumping in to "prove" diddly either.

Seems everyone rational is staying away from this **** show.
Click to expand...
If they provided information clearing Biden, the company would be refuting evidence that the company had been involved in corruption. If the company provided evidence implicating Biden, the company would be providing evidence that the company had been involved in corruption. The situations are not symmetrical.

Both sides are presumably thinking strategically here, so just because today they haven't provided proof one way or the other doesn't mean that they won't tomorrow.
 
shuttlt said:
You are on my ignore list, but none the less.... these emails have been sent from a law firm and an investment fund. If you don't think they have the capacity to confirm/deny to a legally defensible standard that these emails were sent by them, then I don't know what to tell you. These are companies who Biden worked for/with and who are being accused of wrong doing here. That is ignoring what ever logs Apple and Google will have.

If they want to refute that they sent these emails, they easily can.
Click to expand...

You are no longer claiming that it's easy to disprove these screenshots then? Now your claim is that a law firm denying something will be considered proof? I would ask you to consider whether law firms routinely deny things in court that are subsequently found to have happened.
 
shuttlt said:
If they provided information clearing Biden, the company would be refuting evidence that the company had been involved in corruption. If the company provided evidence implicating Biden, the company would be providing evidence that the company had been involved in corruption. The situations are not symmetrical.

Both sides are presumably thinking strategically here, so just because today they haven't provided proof one way or the other doesn't mean that they won't tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Again, why should any company address such complete ********? You're asking them to play your fools game.

This fool is out of it. Keep trying to find others.
 
shuttlt said:
Again, you are misstating this. It's more like you are claiming that Walgreens sent me an email saying they sold me Heroin.

First of all I could safely deny it based on having searched my email and also not being involved in anything relating to Heroin. Then, were there money on the line I could get independent verification that there was no such email evident in my inbox. Since I am nobody of any significance, that is all I could do. Were I Biden though, I could get Walgreen to confirm that they hadn't sent the email. They would almost certainly have their email logged in an auditable way so we could get proof one way or the other. Were I Biden I would also be able to get Apple to confirm if the email had been received.

Maybe they will produce proof like this.

Pretending that what is easy for a campaign spending hundreds of millions of dollars and with institutional support should necessarily be easy for me is feeble.
Click to expand...

You're still not disproving that I sent you the e-mail.
 
One other interesting thing here. These emails don't look to come from a single hacked email account. There is no single email account on all the emails so far released. Either somebody has hacked multiple email systems, or it looks like we are talking about something like somebody getting access to Hunter's laptop.
 
"People in personal trouble, as Hunter Biden was in 2014, often ignore good advice, and that seems to be the case here. The consultant, elaborating on a fragmentary account I reported in March, told me that he was approached in the spring of 2014 by one of Biden’s friends, who was worried about his plans to join Burisma.

The consultant said he met Biden and the friend for drinks at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Georgetown. Biden described the discussions between Burisma and his company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, which he had founded five years before with Christopher Heinz and Archer, both friends from Yale.

Biden asked the consultant about some of the Ukrainians involved with Burisma, whom Archer had encountered in Kyiv. Burisma was pursuing new gas leases in Ukraine that it claimed might attract international investment, the consultant remembers, and wanted prominent people on its board.

The consultant made some inquiries about several senior Burisma executives and then met with Biden a week later. The consultant told Biden the planned Burisma gas licenses involved small assets that weren’t likely to attract foreign investors, and cautioned the vice president’s son against working for the company.

“They’re using you for your name. They will exploit your name to your detriment and your father’s,” the consultant remembers warning Biden."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8210bc-0fd1-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html
 
The Greater Fool said:
Again, why should any company address such complete ********? You're asking them to play your fools game.

This fool is out of it. Keep trying to find others.
Click to expand...
Now we are getting back to the strategic thing. Maybe it is better to not answer accusations of criminality that could easily be refuted than to refute them. It is possible that they take that view. If the emails are fake, and Biden wanted to prove it, I have a hard time believing that these companies wouldn't cooperate.
 
shuttlt said:
Now we are getting back to the strategic thing. Maybe it is better to not answer accusations of criminality that could easily be refuted than to refute them. It is possible that they take that view. If the emails are fake, and Biden wanted to prove it, I have a hard time believing that these companies wouldn't cooperate.
Click to expand...

As shutIt says I'm on ignore, I'll just keep shouting into the void. If these screenshots are easily refuted in your opinion, you should be able to explain how they could be refuted. So far we have "deny it", "have a law firm deny it", and "so what if I can't, it should be easy for Biden." None of those hold water.
 
wareyin said:
If you can't imagine a way it can be done, claiming it is easy to do seems like a BS way to lend unearned legitimacy to an illegitimate claim.
Click to expand...
I already explained how it could be done. You have a lot of companies involved here any one of whom could say whether the emails were genuine. Now Fox seems to be claiming to have sources that confirm the Chinese emails.

The next couple of weeks will be interesting watching this play out.
 
shuttlt said:
I already explained how it could be done. You have a lot of companies involved here any one of whom could say whether the emails were genuine. Now Fox seems to be claiming to have sources that confirm the Chinese emails.

The next couple of weeks will be interesting watching this play out.
Click to expand...
It has already played out. True believers are just behind the curve.
 
jerrywayne said:
"People in personal trouble, as Hunter Biden was in 2014, often ignore good advice, and that seems to be the case here. The consultant, elaborating on a fragmentary account I reported in March, told me that he was approached in the spring of 2014 by one of Biden’s friends, who was worried about his plans to join Burisma.

The consultant said he met Biden and the friend for drinks at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Georgetown. Biden described the discussions between Burisma and his company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, which he had founded five years before with Christopher Heinz and Archer, both friends from Yale.

Biden asked the consultant about some of the Ukrainians involved with Burisma, whom Archer had encountered in Kyiv. Burisma was pursuing new gas leases in Ukraine that it claimed might attract international investment, the consultant remembers, and wanted prominent people on its board.

The consultant made some inquiries about several senior Burisma executives and then met with Biden a week later. The consultant told Biden the planned Burisma gas licenses involved small assets that weren’t likely to attract foreign investors, and cautioned the vice president’s son against working for the company.

“They’re using you for your name. They will exploit your name to your detriment and your father’s,” the consultant remembers warning Biden."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8210bc-0fd1-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html
Click to expand...


From your article.

Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop: An explainer
 
shuttlt said:
I already explained how it could be done. You have a lot of companies involved here any one of whom could say whether the emails were genuine. Now Fox seems to be claiming to have sources that confirm the Chinese emails.

The next couple of weeks will be interesting watching this play out.
Click to expand...

Your explanation was that Biden should deny it, or that some law firm should deny it. You continue to ignore that neither of those things disproves anything. Here, this should help explain why: Let's imagine that Biden did come out and say that the screen shotted email that was supposedly sent to Hunter Biden wasn't sent. Would you then accept that this was false?


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you wouldn't. You haven't yet accepted anything that exonerates Biden, even if it was in the sources you claimed to get your information from. This says you likely wouldn't accept Biden, or any law firm, or Apple, or any of the relevant intelligence agencies telling you that this is Russian disinformation. So why should Biden give this nonsense the light of day?
 
wareyin said:
Your explanation was that Biden should deny it, or that some law firm should deny it. You continue to ignore that neither of those things disproves anything. Here, this should help explain why: Let's imagine that Biden did come out and say that the screen shotted email that was supposedly sent to Hunter Biden wasn't sent. Would you then accept that this was false?


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you wouldn't. You haven't yet accepted anything that exonerates Biden, even if it was in the sources you claimed to get your information from. This says you likely wouldn't accept Biden, or any law firm, or Apple, or any of the relevant intelligence agencies telling you that this is Russian disinformation. So why should Biden give this nonsense the light of day?
Click to expand...
Of course I'd accept evidence from the email service provider. If we don't accept things like that then we are effectively choosing what to believe on the basis of which side it benefits. That wouldn't make it utterly beyond challenge, but it would be a high bar for Giuliani to get over and my assumption would certainly be that the emails were false. These emails could turn out to be genuine, or not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom