Call Me Jimmy wrote: » This isn't a legal case though. Journalists view evidence like that all the time no?
Chris_Heilong wrote: » As long as they have enough evidence to prove that Biden is too corrupt to run for president then that is all that matters and will be a lot more real than any "evidence" they had on Trump.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » He's obviously not interested in JUST verifying the emails, he is a political operative after all. With such easily falsifiable allegations like this they are wide open for legal/civil action, so I don't think they've done it willy-nilly.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » Bakery's candidate cookies have accurately predicted the last 3 elections
Phoebas wrote: » We have reached the bottom of the barrel. What does Punxsutawney Phil have to say?
hetuzozaho wrote: » When you put it like that it sounds like the "REAL DEAL". Then you actually read into it... "Suppressed from publication" :P
Gruffalux wrote: » Even jack said sorrrree...https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-says-blocking-post-story-was-wrong.html
hetuzozaho wrote: » The video Rudi put up his hilarious. It's long so a few highlights. His analysis of the Biden "Crime Family". Is this satire?
Phoebas wrote: » That doesn't address the question at all. It would be very easy for Rudi Giuliani to release a copy of the drive or even copies of the emails. He has chosen not to. That's a big red flag on top of the big red flag of Giuliani's involvement in the first place.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Yea he is not handing over the hard drive, he said journalists can come and look at it on site but can't take it away. It could be the case that he's lying because they are slow-rolling it purposely to catch the Biden campaign in lies (that's what they say).
cnocbui wrote: » You belive someone who handles stolen goods?
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Are these stolen goods? Even if they were, countless major stories have been broken by journalists who handled 'stolen' goods.
Gruffalux wrote: » A lot more than dodgy emails. 1000s of extreme photos and video footage and all verified to be from Hunter's laptop, and to be of Hunter, by Hunter's lawyer. And strong implication and likely evidence of influence of Joe Biden purchased. And the whole thing suppressed from publication by Twitter and Facebook.
Eric Cartman wrote: » If don. Jr was selling access to his dad to fund his drug habbit even a tweet from a new account saying that would be enough for most of the people here saying the emails and pictures of hunter smoking crack are fake. Joe biden allowing his son to sell access is a serious issue.
Kidchameleon wrote: » Probably waiting for Biden to deny it (he hasn't yet), then they can hit him with the sucker punch.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Pity they weren't all so meticulous when it came to stories about Trump paying prostitutes to urinate on one another in a Moscow bed the Obamas had slept in.
Overheal wrote: » He was already, I am told, making boatloads of money for sitting on the board of Burisma. How expensive do you think a drug habit is?
Eric Cartman wrote: » and the point is that the board seat was likely contingent on access to Joe.
Overheal wrote: » No you’re evading you’re point you said he set up a meeting ‘for drug money.’ Prove it.
Eric Cartman wrote: » the money being used for drugs is tongue in cheek because its well established the guy had/has a coke problem , but you knew that already and are being obtuse. if the emails are real they certainly suggest his place on the board was an avenue for a meeting with his father.
Deleted User wrote: » There's an incredible amount of conjecture from certain posters about a meeting that likely never occured. It's fascinating to watch, particularly given all the questionable things both Trump and his children did that are proven to have occurred that the same posters defended...
Overheal wrote: » Pete despite the obvious whataboutery here what are you saying, that news reports that first broke in January 2017 about a pee tape, was trying to influence an election? :rolleyes:
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Eh, lol @ the whataboutery accusation given we're talking the same bloody news outlets, but anyway, letting that aside, your argument is a strawman as I never mentioned election interference, just highlighting how this newfound philosophy these "news" outlets have with regards to stories having to have trustworthy sources before they run with them, is eh somewhat ............. convenient, given they never gave a monkey's when Trump was the one the stories concerned. Oh and FYI, an article was posted about the Steele Dossier in October 2016, BEFORE the election highlighting that within it there was information claiming that the Kremlin had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail" him if they wanted to. Now why would the DNC want that article written about their opposition just before a Presidential election? Not that I would have any issue with Hillary wanting the sins of her opponent exposed to the public. Have at it. But what I do take issue with is them making it up, or knowing that they had been made up, and distributing them anyway, and all in an effort to steal an election / oust the victor from office after they had won.
Eric Cartman wrote: » do you remember the trump N word tape that a poster swore blind was coming since 2015 , then there was the pee tape, then there was the Russia stuff. Now the shoe is on the other foot and theyre mad.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
