Hunter Biden (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    FullMonte

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages
    1,386
    Reaction score
    2,381
    Age
    56
    Location
    Bossier City
    Offline
    Lost in all the news coverage about what's going on in the US right now is this bit of information.

    The Ukrainian government has completed an audit of thousands of case files related to Burisma. Ruslan Ryaboshapka (the prosecutor general), described by Zelenskiy as "100 percent my person" in the July phone call with president Trump said "I specifically asked prosecutors to check especially carefully those facts about Biden's alleged involvement. They answered that there was nothing of the kind."

    Not that anyone SHOULD be surprised to find out that Hunter Biden was not implicated in something that was done by the CEO of Burisma in his role as a government employee, that happened two years before Biden joined the board.

     
    The entire claim by the NY Post was inaccurate because they had a collection of files that included stuff not from the original laptop but added later.

    The entire premise of their story was wrong and you just dismiss it.
    You can't even point out what they supposedly reported that was inaccurate lol. You are hiding behind vague statements because you are in denial or you know it's true and will never say so here because you are a partisan Democrat.
     
    SFL: we all see what you are doing. You come in here and post lies about Archer’s testimony about Hunter and when called on it, you double down. When you are finally proven wrong and can no longer advance your false claims, you ignore that you said things that weren’t true and just pivot to a different angle.
     
    Per WaPo‘s expert analysis of the NY Post collection of files:

    “The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years.”

    The NY Post presented it as “Hunter Biden’s laptop” when it clearly had been tampered with repeatedly.

    Will you admit you were wrong to say that the NYPost ”laptop” was verified and accurate?
    You are trying to use the Washington Post's analysis to try to link it to the New York Post? You can't even say what was inaccurate in the NY Post. Stop listening to Hunter's lawyers bullshirt spin.
     
    You can't even point out what they supposedly reported that was inaccurate lol. You are hiding behind vague statements because you are in denial or you know it's true and will never say so here because you are a partisan Democrat.
    Nope, I am not going to dredge up old posts and do the work because you cannot admit that you were wrong about Archer’s testimony. Screw that.
     
    SFL: we all see what you are doing. You come in here and post lies about Archer’s testimony about Hunter and when called on it, you double down. When you are finally proven wrong and can no longer advance your false claims, you ignore that you said things that weren’t true and just pivot to a different angle.
    You constantly make claims you can't back up. Put up or shut up. What did the NY Post publish that wasn't true?
     
    Nope, I am not going to dredge up old posts and do the work because you cannot admit that you were wrong about Archer’s testimony. Screw that.
    Archer never said the words illusion of access. That was Goldman who said it multiple times. Goldman asked if it was a fair characterization and Archer said almost.
     
    You constantly make claims you can't back up. Put up or shut up. What did the NY Post publish that wasn't true?
    I’m not doing your leg work for you. You consistently ignore requests for information. Right this very minute there are multiple questions I have asked you that you ignore.

    The NY Post has a long, long history of making shirt up. We have discussed the NY Post laptop story quite a bit on here. You can look it up, I’m not rehashing it with you to distract you from the lies you posted about Archer’s testimony. Especially when you don’t have the decency to admit what you posted were lies.
     
    Archer never said the words illusion of access. That was Goldman who said it multiple times. Goldman asked if it was a fair characterization and Archer said almost.
    We have posted the exchange where he said it. You’re ridiculous. It’s been posted 2x now where he says the words and then agrees with them. And he explains his almost comment and he says there was never anything of substance in the conversations with Joe.

    Quit posting lies.
     
    You constantly make claims you can't back up. Put up or shut up. What did the NY Post publish that wasn't true?

    From the initial NYPost story:

    "The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer."

    Since it has been proven repeatedly that not everything they received came from the laptop, this statement is 100% wrong, as verified by two experts utilized by the Washington Post:

    "In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI."
     
    From the initial NYPost story:

    "The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer."

    Since it has been proven repeatedly that not everything they received came from the laptop, this statement is 100% wrong, as verified by two experts utilized by the Washington Post:

    "In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI."
    What did the NY Post report that wasn't accurate? Did the New York Post report on something that was added to the laptop files?
     
    What did the NY Post report that wasn't accurate? Did the New York Post report on something that was added to the laptop files?

    They said the files were recovered from a laptop. The files they received were tampered with and had things added before being turned over to the post. That means they weren't recovered from a laptop, they were a hodgepodge of files from different sources. That makes the claim that the files were recovered from a laptop a lie.
     
    I'm aware that some people tried or added additional things to the files once they got them, but there nothing indicated that the material they the NY Post published wasn't accurate.

    Maybe you can help us out a little. Since you say you are aware that things were added, can you tell us exactly what was added that was not reported in the NYT article?
     
    As a reasonably objective observer, I have to say I think @SaintForLife is winning this exchange.

    He has reasonably asked for evidence supporting the assertion that the NY Post posted something incorrect. No one yet has provided evidence that directly supports this assertion.

    They said the files were recovered from a laptop. The files they received were tampered with and had things added before being turned over to the post. That means they weren't recovered from a laptop, they were a hodgepodge of files from different sources. That makes the claim that the files were recovered from a laptop a lie.

    Not really. The files were recovered from a laptop. The fact that they were put onto the laptop, perhaps intentionally and surreptitiously by other actors, does not change the fact that they were recovered from the laptop when the information was made public.

    @SaintForLife's request for evidence supporting the assertion that the NY Post published incorrect information remains unanswered.

    However, @SaintForLife's suggestion that because Archer never actually uttered the words "illusion of access," that he didn't agree to the assertion is thoroughly a reading comprehension issue on his part. Until we have clarity on why he said that was "almost" fair, and not completely fair, especially since he initially fully agreed to "illusion of access," it is reasonable to assume that he generally agreed with the assertion.

    He did say that there were actually conversations that happened, but since we currently have testimony that indicates that the only conversations that happened were non-business related, @SaintForLife will need to provide more evidence detailing conversations with Joe that occurred that were, in fact, business related. Otherwise, his assertion also falls flat.
     
    Last edited:
    As a reasonably objective observer, I have to say I think @SaintForLife is winning this exchange.

    He has reasonably asked for evidence supporting the assertion that the NY Post posted something incorrect. No one yet has provided evidence that directly supports this assertion.



    Not really. The files were recovered from a laptop. The fact that they were put onto the laptop, perhaps intentionally and surreptitiously by other actors, does not change the fact that they were recovered from the laptop when the information was made public.

    @SaintForLife's request for evidence supporting the assertion that the NY Post published incorrect information remains unanswered.

    However, @SaintForLife's suggestion that because Archer never actually uttered the words "illusion of access," that he didn't agree to the assertion is thoroughly a reading comprehension issue on his part. Until we have clarity on why he said that was "almost" fair, and not completely fair, especially since he initially fully agreed to "illusion of access," it is reasonable to assume that he generally agreed with the assertion.

    He did say that there were actually conversations that happened, but since we currently have testimony that indicates that the only conversations that happened were non-business related, @SaintForLife will need to provide more evidence detailing conversations with Joe that occurred that were, in fact, business related. Otherwise, his assertion also falls flat.

     
    As a reasonably objective observer, I have to say I think @SaintForLife is winning this exchange.

    He has reasonably asked for evidence supporting the assertion that the NY Post posted something incorrect. No one yet has provided evidence that directly supports this assertion.



    Not really. The files were recovered from a laptop. The fact that they were put onto the laptop, perhaps intentionally and surreptitiously by other actors, does not change the fact that they were recovered from the laptop when the information was made public.

    @SaintForLife's request for evidence supporting the assertion that the NY Post published incorrect information remains unanswered.

    However, @SaintForLife's suggestion that because Archer never actually uttered the words "illusion of access," that he didn't agree to the assertion is thoroughly a reading comprehension issue on his part. Until we have clarity on why he said that was "almost" fair, and not completely fair, especially since he initially fully agreed to "illusion of access," it is reasonable to assume that he generally agreed with the assertion.

    He did say that there were actually conversations that happened, but since we currently have testimony that indicates that the only conversations that happened were non-business related, @SaintForLife will need to provide more evidence detailing conversations with Joe that occurred that were, in fact, business related. Otherwise, his assertion also falls flat.

    I disagree re: the laptop. The physical laptop with the original hard drive was in FBI custody. What the NYPost received was a hard drive that was eventually proven to contain a mixture of files, some from the laptop and some added after the fact. The editorial team had to damn near beg for names to put on the byline and of the two they used, one didn't even know until after the story was published. Even NYP reporters thought the contents were suspect.

    Edit: We also know why Archer said it was an "almost fair" categorization. There was physical access to Joe Biden in the sense that he was physically present at times, but business was never discussed. There was physical access, not political or business access.
     
    Last edited:
    I disagree re: the laptop. The physical laptop with the original hard drive was in FBI custody. What the NYPost received was a hard drive that was eventually proven to contain a mixture of files, some from the laptop and some added after the fact. The editorial team had to damn near beg for names to put on the byline and of the two they used, one didn't even know until after the story was published. Even NYP reporters thought the contents were suspect.
    I think this helps the argument, but it still doesn't quite address @SaintForLife's argument. You're saying that the NY Post never actually had access to the laptop, but an adulterated copy from the beginning, correct?

    If that's the case, can you point to anything published by the NY Post from their adulterated hard drive that was later determined to be false? Any specific files that were determined to be of a different origin that were posited by the NY Post or others as data belonging to Hunter?

    Edit: We also know why Archer said it was an "almost fair" categorization. There was physical access to Joe Biden in the sense that he was physically present at times, but business was never discussed. There was physical access, not political or business access.
    Yes, I agree with this assessment. @SaintForLife's argument for "almost fair" doesn't hold up.
     
    I think this helps the argument, but it still doesn't quite address @SaintForLife's argument. You're saying that the NY Post never actually had access to the laptop, but an adulterated copy from the beginning, correct?

    If that's the case, can you point to anything published by the NY Post from their adulterated hard drive that was later determined to be false? Any specific files that were determined to be of a different origin that were posited by the NY Post or others as data belonging to Hunter?

    That goes back to the question I last asked SFL. He agrees (and it's well documented) that there were things that were files that were added to the "laptop" after it was received. Even the DOJ filing that he brought up makes that clear. However, no one has reported on exactly what particular things that were reported were added.

    With that said, short of someone going through every single media report about the "laptop" and comparing the information that was reported, and identifying specific things that some media outlets claimed were on there that the original NYPost story did not mention, it's a safe assumption that there are things the original story reported were on the "laptop" that were not actually on the copy that the DOJ has.
     
    The files were recovered from a laptop
    No they weren’t. They were on a Zip drive, or some other portable drive. There were files added to this portable drive well after the actual laptop was sent to the FBI.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom