Hunter's laptop

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Trying to connect Biden to some kind of illegal activity based on that seems really disingenuous considering the level of grift involved with the most recent former President's children.

The fact that Hunter rode over to China on Air Force 2 with his dad and 12 days later is what implicates Joe.  Taking your son of an official government trip and he ends up with a lucrative contract 12 days after is suspicious enough, but did the tax payer get reimbursed for the cost of the trip that Hunter made a profit on?

The whataboutism has no value here, we’re talking about the current President.

[AU9377 4,925]

8 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

What again was proven? No collusion comes immediately to mind.

He explains it well.

"My oath before God requires that I vote for impeachment."

Just to remind everyone...

The U.S. Ambassador to the EU, two U.S. Ambassadors to Ukraine, two National Security Advisors and multiple other witnesses testified that the President held up aid in an effort to get the Ukraine President to announce an investigation into the President's political rival.  We also had the audio recording of a phone call between the President and Ukrainian President Zelensky.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/sondland-changes-testimony-acknowledges-delivering-quid-pro-quo-message-ukraine-n1076736

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland made a significant change to his testimony to House impeachment investigators this week: He said he now remembers telling a top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that Ukraine would not receive U.S. military assistance until it committed to investigating the 2016 election and former Vice President Joe Biden.

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by AU9377

[AUFAN78 3,894]

15 hours ago, AU9377 said:

He explains it well.

"My oath before God requires that I vote for impeachment."

Just to remind everyone...

The U.S. Ambassador to the EU, two U.S. Ambassadors to Ukraine, two National Security Advisors and multiple other witnesses testified that the President held up aid in an effort to get the Ukraine President to announce an investigation into the President's political rival.  We also had the audio recording of a phone call between the President and Ukrainian President Zelensky.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/sondland-changes-testimony-acknowledges-delivering-quid-pro-quo-message-ukraine-n1076736

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland made a significant change to his testimony to House impeachment investigators this week: He said he now remembers telling a top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that Ukraine would not receive U.S. military assistance until it committed to investigating the 2016 election and former Vice President Joe Biden.

 

The president’s actions in conducting Ukrainian relations do not establish an impeachable offense under the circumstances. 

The president’s hold on defense aid was temporary, and Ukraine got every bit of it. The Ukrainian government did not commence or assist any investigations to get the aid. The delay caused no harm to Ukraine. To portray what happened as an impeachable offense is just the next stage in a tireless political campaign. It trivializes impeachment.

I laugh when I hear Democrats complain that Ukraine was hurt by the temporary hold on defense aid. Recall President Obama refused to provide Ukraine any lethal defense aid after Russia began attacking it and seizing territory in 2014. President Trump has been providing said aid and has imposed tough sanctions on Russia. The Democrats’ sudden obsession over Ukraine’s well-being, like their newfound angst over the geopolitical challenge posed by Russia, was political posturing.

It was not wise and certainly inappropriate for Trump to mention the Biden's and ask the Ukrainians to look into that specific corruption. Had Trump been more polished he would have simply said, “We want you to root out corruption" and there would be nothing to criticize. Trump's approach lacked finesse, but it’s not impeachable.

President Trump’s offense does not hold a candle to what Democrats did in 2016, when the Obama administration placed the intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus in the service of the Democrats’ agenda to win the election and, failing that, to suffocate Donald Trump’s administration. Interestingly, Democrats oppose any investigation of that scheme, let alone accountability or impeachment for any participant.

Democrats clearly pursued impeachment for political purposes. They sold their souls for partisan gain at the expense of dividing our nation. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by AUFAN78

[AU9377 4,925]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

The president’s actions in conducting Ukrainian relations do not establish an impeachable offense under the circumstances. 

The president’s hold on defense aid was temporary, and Ukraine got every bit of it. The Ukrainian government did not commence or assist any investigations to get the aid. The delay caused no harm to Ukraine. To portray what happened as an impeachable offense is just the next stage in a tireless political campaign. It trivializes impeachment.

I laugh when I hear Democrats complain that Ukraine was hurt by the temporary hold on defense aid. Recall President Obama refused to provide Ukraine any lethal defense aid after Russia began attacking it and seizing territory in 2014. President Trump has been providing said aid and has imposed tough sanctions on Russia. The Democrats’ sudden obsession over Ukraine’s well-being, like their newfound angst over the geopolitical challenge posed by Russia, was political posturing.

It was not wise and certainly inappropriate for Trump to mention the Biden's and ask the Ukrainians to look into that specific corruption. Had Trump been more polished he would have simply said, “We want you to root out corruption" and there would be nothing to criticize. Trump's approach lacked finesse, but it’s not impeachable.

President Trump’s offense does not hold a candle to what Democrats did in 2016, when the Obama administration placed the intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus in the service of the Democrats’ agenda to win the election and, failing that, to suffocate Donald Trump’s administration. Interestingly, Democrats oppose any investigation of that scheme, let alone accountability or impeachment for any participant.

Democrats clearly pursued impeachment for political purposes. They sold their souls for partisan gain at the expense of dividing our nation. 

Nixon didn't break into the Watergate building.  In fact, he didn't give instructions or know about the crime until after the fact.  He used the power of his office to cover up his administration's involvement in the break in and conspired to cover up their actions, using Federal officials, after the fact.  You must see that as being the actions of an ethical President if you have no problem with this.

Trump removed the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine because she would not play ball.  He then directed the Ambassador to the EU to convey the message below.

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland made a significant change to his testimony to House impeachment investigators this week: He said he now remembers telling a top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that Ukraine would not receive U.S. military assistance until it committed to investigating the 2016 election and former Vice President Joe Biden.

U.S. military assistance and aid was in fact delayed. But for a whistleblower that did the right thing, it would have been delayed until the investigation was announced.  In fact, Zelensky had scheduled an appearance on CNN to announce the investigation according to the testimony of William Taylor, Trump's second ambassador to Ukraine.  Taylor also testified that Sondland told him at the time that the aid would not be forthcoming until an announcement was made. These are all facts established by the testimony of Trump appointees, not Democrats fishing for something.  When any President uses the power of the office to influence the actions of a foreign power to benefit himself and not the country, there is a problem that has to be addressed.  That isn't paying for opposition research. 

If you don't have a problem with that, then you wouldn't have a problem with Biden doing the same thing?

Impeachment for political purposes?  You mean like the Clinton impeachment?  Memories sure are short.

That last bit about what right wing media thinks Obama did is nothing more than one big deflection.

[AU9377 4,925]

On 3/22/2022 at 7:00 PM, I_M4_AU said:

The fact that Hunter rode over to China on Air Force 2 with his dad and 12 days later is what implicates Joe.  Taking your son of an official government trip and he ends up with a lucrative contract 12 days after is suspicious enough, but did the tax payer get reimbursed for the cost of the trip that Hunter made a profit on?

The whataboutism has no value here, we’re talking about the current President.

You can't give yourself a license to be a hypocrite and forbid others from pointing it out.

https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-trademarks-voting-ivanka-trump-0a3283036d2f4e699da4aa3c6dd01727

Not to be left out... bank accounts, lease agreements and 41 patents that we know about ....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/10/23/forbes-estimates-china-paid-trump-at-least-54-million-since-he-took-office-via-mysterious-trump-tower-lease/?sh=5dba1a86ed11

I don't like that Hunter went on the trip either, but you cannot make an argument that the taxpayers were hosed by the extra fuel it took to fly Hunter Biden on the plane.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

25 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Nixon didn't break into the Watergate building.  In fact, he didn't give instructions or know about the crime until after the fact.  He used the power of his office to cover up his administration's involvement in the break in and conspired to cover up their actions, using Federal officials, after the fact.  You must see that as being the actions of an ethical President if you have no problem with this.

What did Trump cover up? Didn't he release his perfect call? (I couldn't resist )

Trump removed the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine because she would not play ball.

Trump Ordered Ukraine Ambassador Removed After Complaints From Giuliani, Others.

Marie Yovanovitch dismissed after Trump allies said she was blocking Biden probe and bad-mouthing president, people familiar with the matter say.

 He then directed the Ambassador to the EU to convey the message below.

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland made a significant change to his testimony to House impeachment investigators this week: He said he now remembers telling a top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that Ukraine would not receive U.S. military assistance until it committed to investigating the 2016 election and former Vice President Joe Biden.

I detailed how this was unwise, inappropriate and lacked finesse yet not impeachable.

U.S. military assistance and aid was in fact delayed. But for a whistleblower that did the right thing, it would have been delayed until the investigation was announced.  In fact, Zelensky had scheduled an appearance on CNN to announce the investigation according to the testimony of William Taylor, Trump's second ambassador to Ukraine.  Taylor also testified that Sondland told him at the time that the aid would not be forthcoming until an announcement was made. These are all facts established by the testimony of Trump appointees, not Democrats fishing for something.  When any President uses the power of the office to influence the actions of a foreign power to benefit himself and not the country, there is a problem that has to be addressed.  That isn't paying for opposition research. 

It was delayed temporarily and it was a problem as I previously mentioned. It was handled clumsily. A president should not put a hold on aid to a friendly and strategically significant nation that Congress has directed in legislation and the president himself has signed into law. The Constitution, however, gives the president sweeping foreign-affairs authority, so Trump would arguably have had the power to decline to deliver the aid altogether. This, by contrast, was merely a temporary delay that was of no consequence to Ukraine’s defense. If we were talking about any other president, some criticism would be in order. To portray what happened as an impeachable offense is just the next stage in a tireless political campaign. It trivializes impeachment.

If you don't have a problem with that, then you wouldn't have a problem with Biden doing the same thing?

I had a problem with it, but can admit it wasn't impeachable. Again this was political campaign by the democrats.

Impeachment for political purposes?  You mean like the Clinton impeachment?  Memories sure are short.

I am speaking to the first Trump impeachment.

That last bit about what right wing media thinks Obama did is nothing more than one big deflection.

I specifically stated the Obama Administration, but yes quite sure the big guy was well aware.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

17 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I don't like that Hunter went on the trip either, but you cannot make an argument that the taxpayers were hosed by the extra fuel it took to fly Hunter Biden on the plane.

The whataboutism is frowned upon by those on the left when those on the right bring it up.  It is a not treated the equally here.

It’s not the point that the tax payers were hosed, it is that Joe Biden took it upon himself to allow his son to ride on Air Force 2 without regard to the taxpayers even though he knew his son benefited monetarily from the trip. The amount doesn’t really matter at all.

It might be a perk of being VP, but I would think if a family member were to benefit from the trip it no longer becomes a viable perk and he should not be allowed to take the trip or if the VP subsequently found out about it, the VP should pay the going rate for a trip to Beijing.

[AU9377 4,925]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The whataboutism is frowned upon by those on the left when those on the right bring it up.  It is a not treated the equally here.

It’s not the point that the tax payers were hosed, it is that Joe Biden took it upon himself to allow his son to ride on Air Force 2 without regard to the taxpayers even though he knew his son benefited monetarily from the trip. The amount doesn’t really matter at all.

It might be a perk of being VP, but I would think if a family member were to benefit from the trip it no longer becomes a viable perk and he should not be allowed to take the trip or if the VP subsequently found out about it, the VP should pay the going rate for a trip to Beijing.

I actually agree with that.  That is generally why a President doesn't bring close family into his or her administration.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

On 3/20/2022 at 10:48 AM, TexasTiger said:

The “media” better understood how manipulated it had been in 2016 and this had many of the same markers, including the same crooked pitchman, Rudy. It did look like disinformation. The timing of the story allowed just enough time for disinformation and not enough to show whether there was anything actually relevant to Biden. So they made a judgement call. I’ll guarantee you any substantiated story damaging to Biden would have gotten tons of coverage by the MSM at any point then or now. Hillary’s emails got more coverage despite the lack of meaningful substance than any in my life.

Okay, so it’s Hunter’s laptop— that’s proven to be relevant to Joe’s candidacy how exactly? Hard facts, not the same BS innuendo we always hear. What’s the real meat of this story?

This same media ran with the Steele Dossier where there were so many red flags it wasn't funny especially when they knew it had been paid for by the DNC. I would give the media the benefit of the doubt on the Hunter Biden laptop that they couldn't confirm so didn't want to run with it if they had used same standard with Steele Dossier.  This is the same media that was sued when they went after some kids who were confronted by an American Indian and they assumed the Kids were racists and started it. This is the same media that accused border patrol agents of whipping Hattian illegal's based on some photograph's and continued to press that story even after the photographer explained they were long reins and never whipped the Hattian's. 

[TexasTiger 12,831]

2 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

This same media ran with the Steele Dossier where there were so many red flags it wasn't funny especially when they knew it had been paid for by the DNC. I would give the media the benefit of the doubt on the Hunter Biden laptop that they couldn't confirm so didn't want to run with it if they had used same standard with Steele Dossier.  This is the same media that was sued when they went after some kids who were confronted by an American Indian and they assumed the Kids were racists and started it. This is the same media that accused border patrol agents of whipping Hattian illegal's based on some photograph's and continued to press that story even after the photographer explained they were long reins and never whipped the Hattian's. 

The same media obsessed over Hillary Clintons emails, a Whitewater investigation that drug on forever and Vince Foster’s suicide. Republicans are highly skilled at manipulating “the media’s” tendencies.

Once again, the Steele Dossier originated with Republicans. Steele was first hired and paid by Republicans. Oppo research happens in every major campaign.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

On 3/22/2022 at 9:15 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

Hunter Biden's laptop is going to take it's rightful place in Republican Party lore right alongside Obama's "Real" Birth Certificate and Hillary's emails.

Hillary's emails were illegal. Anybody working for the government is required to take a class on how to handle government emails and sign a paper where they acknowledge that it is illegal and they can be terminated and or criminally prosecuted for intentionally sending emails outside of government email system. As a Lawyer Clinton couldn't even use the excuse that she didn't understand.  For a few years while working for a company I helped with Department of Education helping to support their email system.  I had to take classes and sign one of those documents. Ask anybody who has worked for the government if that is not the case.  So please don't BS and act like what Hilary did wasn't wrong and criminal as she was dealing with classified emails. 

One excuse that was floated was Collin Powell sometimes used outside email system's the problem with that was the government did not have those rules in place at that time. But did when Hillary was there. 

I will agree with you about the Birth Certificate it was a bogus claim.

Edited March 25, 2022 by AuburnNTexas

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

On 3/22/2022 at 10:35 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

Sure?.

I don't know why Conservatives think Democrats as a whole have any love towards Hunter Biden. The dude's been a druggies most of his life and seems to be a grifter. If he's done anything illegal then throw his ass in jail. 

I'm just glad that Joe Biden hasn't put his troubled, unqualified children in high ranking offices or positions of power like the other guy. 

 

If the FBI's got the good on Hunter then let them pin him to the wall. 

They probably eventually will after Joe is out of office so it won't hurt Joe.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

I will concede up front that Trump said nice things about Putin. I heard them I can't deny them. I also heard Obama say to a Russian after the election he would be in a better position to get the Russians a better Deal (He didn't know he was on mic). Biden, Hillary and Joe multiple times said they wanted to reset and have better ties with Russia. Romney said Russia was our biggest threat and was ridiculed by Obama and the media.  Trump actually took actions against Russia and China which went against the narrative that he was weak against them. 

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Once again, the Steele Dossier originated with Republicans. Steele was first hired and paid by Republicans. Oppo research happens in every major campaign.

After a lunch a nearby pub, Steele told Kramer “that he thought having Senator McCain weigh in would be hopeful in terms of giving the FBI additional prod to take this seriously,” Kramer said.

Kramer added later that "... I think he (Steele) felt that ... having Sen. McCain provide it to the FBI would give it a little more oomph than it had had up until that point."

It helped that McCain, a six-term senator and chairman of the influential Senate Armed Services Committee, "was better to be the recipient of this rather than a Democrat because if it were a Democrat, I think that the view was that it would have been dismissed as a political attack."

Back in Washington, D.C., Kramer obtained two versions of the dossier by Glenn Simpson, a former journalist and co-founder of Fusion GPS, a research firm. One was a copy with redactions, the other had no redactions. Steele was contracted by Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump for the Democratic National Committee and the law firm representing the campaign of Trump's then-Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Kramer said Steele and Simpson knew he would be giving the dossier to McCain.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/03/18/new-details-senator-john-mccain-role-trump-dossier-detailed-deposition-david-kramer/3205658002/

The money paid to Orbis was taken from $1.02 million it received in fees and expenses from the Perkins Coie law firm, the statement said. The law firm represented the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, although initial research by Fusion into Trump and other Republican primary candidates was commissioned by a conservative website.

Sources familiar with Steele’s work said he began working for Fusion GPS in May 2016 and stopped with the election. Earlier, a Washington-based conservative website backed by a wealthy Republican donor, the Washington Free Beacon, hired Fusion to conduct research on Trump and other Republican candidates.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-dossier/ex-british-spy-paid-168000-for-trump-dossier-u-s-firm-discloses-idUSKBN1D15XH

It appears in May of 2016 the republicans before Trump got the nomination in July of 2016.  I would imagine do dissuade Republicans from voting for Trump in the Primaries.   The coup de grace was when Steele and Fusion GPS decided to get Senator John Mc Cain involved.  Eventually the DNC invested in the Dossier.  Politics has some strange bed fellows. 

[autigeremt 6,599]

It's ok....the evil continues to flow through the Clinton Foundation as it always has. The connections that group has with Russian and Chinese influence is sickening. 

As for Hunter and his laptop.....he was a loose cannon and Joe should have kept him as far away from anything that could have blown up in their faces. Power makes a lot of people think they are immune. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

After a lunch a nearby pub, Steele told Kramer “that he thought having Senator McCain weigh in would be hopeful in terms of giving the FBI additional prod to take this seriously,” Kramer said.

Kramer added later that "... I think he (Steele) felt that ... having Sen. McCain provide it to the FBI would give it a little more oomph than it had had up until that point."

It helped that McCain, a six-term senator and chairman of the influential Senate Armed Services Committee, "was better to be the recipient of this rather than a Democrat because if it were a Democrat, I think that the view was that it would have been dismissed as a political attack."

Back in Washington, D.C., Kramer obtained two versions of the dossier by Glenn Simpson, a former journalist and co-founder of Fusion GPS, a research firm. One was a copy with redactions, the other had no redactions. Steele was contracted by Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump for the Democratic National Committee and the law firm representing the campaign of Trump's then-Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Kramer said Steele and Simpson knew he would be giving the dossier to McCain.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/03/18/new-details-senator-john-mccain-role-trump-dossier-detailed-deposition-david-kramer/3205658002/

The money paid to Orbis was taken from $1.02 million it received in fees and expenses from the Perkins Coie law firm, the statement said. The law firm represented the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, although initial research by Fusion into Trump and other Republican primary candidates was commissioned by a conservative website.

Sources familiar with Steele’s work said he began working for Fusion GPS in May 2016 and stopped with the election. Earlier, a Washington-based conservative website backed by a wealthy Republican donor, the Washington Free Beacon, hired Fusion to conduct research on Trump and other Republican candidates.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-dossier/ex-british-spy-paid-168000-for-trump-dossier-u-s-firm-discloses-idUSKBN1D15XH

It appears in May of 2016 the republicans before Trump got the nomination in July of 2016.  I would imagine do dissuade Republicans from voting for Trump in the Primaries.   The coup de grace was when Steele and Fusion GPS decided to get Senator John Mc Cain involved.  Eventually the DNC invested in the Dossier.  Politics has some strange bed fellows. 

As somebody said all campaigns commission research on their opponents hoping to get an advantage. Republican's do it Democrats do it. The difference is when the source has not been verified and you don't know if it is true but you send it out to many different groups other politicians, government officials and media and then because they all got it as once each says it is legitimate because this group or that said same thing when each entity was using the same bogus information. That is what DNC and Hillary's campaign did.  The Conservative republican's who asked for research didn't use it because it wasn't validated.

Adam Schiff multiple times went on various news shows and proclaimed there was a smoking gun that he would produce after the report was leaked.  I am still waiting on the smoking gun evidence.  How come nobody in the press is hounding Adam to put up or shut up?

I will answer my own question it is because if they did that it would make them look bad for believing him with no evidence.

[AU9377 4,925]

8 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Hillary's emails were illegal. Anybody working for the government is required to take a class on how to handle government emails and sign a paper where they acknowledge that it is illegal and they can be terminated and or criminally prosecuted for intentionally sending emails outside of government email system. As a Lawyer Clinton couldn't even use the excuse that she didn't understand.  For a few years while working for a company I helped with Department of Education helping to support their email system.  I had to take classes and sign one of those documents. Ask anybody who has worked for the government if that is not the case.  So please don't BS and act like what Hilary did wasn't wrong and criminal as she was dealing with classified emails. 

One excuse that was floated was Collin Powell sometimes used outside email system's the problem with that was the government did not have those rules in place at that time. But did when Hillary was there. 

I will agree with you about the Birth Certificate it was a bogus claim.

A couple of things get lost in the weeds when it comes to the email saga.  The most important thing that seldom gets mentioned is the fact that prosecutions using the Espionage Act all have one thing in common.  In every case in recent history, the person sending the classified information knew that the person receiving the information was not authorized to receive it, usually meaning that the person receiving the information was a foreign government official, a member of the press, someone's girlfriend etc.

General David Petraeus is a good example. He admitted keeping classified materials and sharing those materials with this biographer/girlfriend.  He knew that the person receiving the information, his biographer, was not authorized to receive that information.

The FBI found instances of certified documents being transmitted, but they found no evidence that these documents were knowingly transmitted to someone not authorized to view them.  That is why they clearly stated that bringing charges on the evidence they had would be unprecedented and unlikely to lead to a conviction.  That is the same reason that two subsequent AGs also refused to prosecute.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

A couple of things get lost in the weeds when it comes to the email saga.  The most important thing that seldom gets mentioned is the fact that prosecutions using the Espionage Act all have one thing in common.  In every case in recent history, the person sending the classified information knew that the person receiving the information was not authorized to receive it, usually meaning that the person receiving the information was a foreign government official, a member of the press, someone's girlfriend etc.

General David Petraeus is a good example. He admitted keeping classified materials and sharing those materials with this biographer/girlfriend.  He knew that the person receiving the information, his biographer, was not authorized to receive that information.

The FBI found instances of certified documents being transmitted, but they found no evidence that these documents were knowingly transmitted to someone not authorized to view them.  That is why they clearly stated that bringing charges on the evidence they had would be unprecedented and unlikely to lead to a conviction.  That is the same reason that two subsequent AGs also refused to prosecute.

Nice try she signed a document that said she would only use government email systems. I am sure there are multiple people on this board who worked with and some who still work with Gov. email systems and they can verify that they signed similar documents. It doesn't matter intent the reason for that is the government systems have multiple layers of protection a private system does not. We don't know if her system was compromised because they wiped it and bleached it so no forensics could be done. Her system could have been compromised and people who should not have had access to the classified information could have gotten it.

There are multiple reports whether true or not that the Russians had her emails and offered them to Trump.  If true it means her system was compromised and classified material was leaked to bad actors because she  intentionally ignored the document she signed. So indirectly all the people who hate Trump and say that he was offered this material are actually proving my point that she was a criminal. Sailor's on subs have been convicted by taking pictures and showing to family. She wasn't convicted of anything because she was protected.  

[jj3jordan 2,051]

1 hour ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Nice try she signed a document that said she would only use government email systems. I am sure there are multiple people on this board who worked with and some who still work with Gov. email systems and they can verify that they signed similar documents. It doesn't matter intent the reason for that is the government systems have multiple layers of protection a private system does not. We don't know if her system was compromised because they wiped it and bleached it so no forensics could be done. Her system could have been compromised and people who should not have had access to the classified information could have gotten it.

There are multiple reports whether true or not that the Russians had her emails and offered them to Trump.  If true it means her system was compromised and classified material was leaked to bad actors because she  intentionally ignored the document she signed. So indirectly all the people who hate Trump and say that he was offered this material are actually proving my point that she was a criminal. Sailor's on subs have been convicted by taking pictures and showing to family. She wasn't convicted of anything because she was protected.  

There were two military operations that failed for unknown reasons while she was sec state. If her email or computer were compromised it would easily explain those two failures. Hands meet blood.

[bigbird 60,501]

This is how I see it playing out. 

After the midterms, Hunter is investigated, charged, and convicted. Hunter will receive a presidential pardon. Joe will announce he will not run in '24. Middle America is hosed and drug along...again...and again.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Truth is, we are lead by very corrupt people attached to two very corrupt parties.

1) What trump asked for was out of line. In the end, he did not hold up the funding for any meaningful length of time.

2) Hunter Biden was given a no-show job that he was 100% totally unqualified for by Burisma making roughly $600K/year. Even his business partner, John Kerry's step son RAN AS FAST AS HE COULD AWAY FROM THIS. He knew it was 100% Corruption. Hunter ran toward it.

3) As soon as he was through with the Ukrainians, he suddenly was leading an investment group that was handling Billion$ from the Chinese. Again, totally unqualified to be there.

4) This wont matter one bit to BLUE MAGA Crowd here on the board. They are just like the RED MAGA crowd. Cannot see anything wrong no matter how openly corrupt it is with their chosen party.

[DKW 86 7,419]

This morning from the Federalist:

4 Takeaways From NYT’s Attempt To Control The Hunter Biden Narrative (thefederalist.com)

This is a great look at the Methodologies used by the NYT, if nothing else. "Doing beta testing of the defenses" is extremely accurate. Where will it go? No idea so far. But the methods of the NYT, and the Psaki hair thing before she tells another whopper are spot on...

[TexasTiger 12,831]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Truth is, we are lead by very corrupt people attached to two very corrupt parties.

1) What trump asked for was out of line. In the end, he did not hold up the funding for any meaningful length of time.

2) Hunter Biden was given a no-show job that he was 100% totally unqualified for by Burisma making roughly $600K/year. Even his business partner, John Kerry's step son RAN AS FAST AS HE COULD AWAY FROM THIS. He knew it was 100% Corruption. Hunter ran toward it.

3) As soon as he was through with the Ukrainians, he suddenly was leading an investment group that was handling Billion$ from the Chinese. Again, totally unqualified to be there.

4) This wont matter one bit to BLUE MAGA Crowd here on the board. They are just like the RED MAGA crowd. Cannot see anything wrong no matter how openly corrupt it is with their chosen party.

Who’s defending Hunter? He’s being investigated. Who’s calling for the stop to that investigation? Who are you arguing with?

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

On 3/25/2022 at 6:38 PM, AU9377 said:

A couple of things get lost in the weeds when it comes to the email saga.  The most important thing that seldom gets mentioned is the fact that prosecutions using the Espionage Act all have one thing in common.  In every case in recent history, the person sending the classified information knew that the person receiving the information was not authorized to receive it, usually meaning that the person receiving the information was a foreign government official, a member of the press, someone's girlfriend etc.

General David Petraeus is a good example. He admitted keeping classified materials and sharing those materials with this biographer/girlfriend.  He knew that the person receiving the information, his biographer, was not authorized to receive that information.

The FBI found instances of certified documents being transmitted, but they found no evidence that these documents were knowingly transmitted to someone not authorized to view them.  That is why they clearly stated that bringing charges on the evidence they had would be unprecedented and unlikely to lead to a conviction.  That is the same reason that two subsequent AGs also refused to prosecute.

There are more Federal laws then the Espionage Act. As I have explained multiple times that Hillary was briefed and signed papers saying all Government emails must be sent from Government email systems. The paper you sign says if you knowingly do the penalty is termination and possible criminal action. The reason it is possible criminal action depends on if it something like I was in a hurry and used my g-mail account once versus I intentionally bypassed the government system by having my own email server built that was not on government property, behind government Firewalls, with strong safeguards and monitoring in place.

You say she didn't intend for it to go to bad actors but by putting it in the Public Domain it made it available to bad actors. You are trying to bend over backwards to give her an out, when you know what she did was wrong, she knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 3/25/2022 at 9:30 AM, AuburnNTexas said:

This same media ran with the Steele Dossier where there were so many red flags it wasn't funny especially when they knew it had been paid for by the DNC. I would give the media the benefit of the doubt on the Hunter Biden laptop that they couldn't confirm so didn't want to run with it if they had used same standard with Steele Dossier.  This is the same media that was sued when they went after some kids who were confronted by an American Indian and they assumed the Kids were racists and started it. This is the same media that accused border patrol agents of whipping Hattian illegal's based on some photograph's and continued to press that story even after the photographer explained they were long reins and never whipped the Hattian's. 

Brother stop. You just shamed so many here on the forum, I am sure there will be a Whataboutism charge flung at you soon.