Biden campaign received massive help

[USincognito]

From the link in the OP

Which is a heavily editorialized opinion piece from a right wing outlet.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which is a heavily editorialized opinion piece from a right wing outlet.

"Right wing" is soft pedaling it.

 

[Always in His Presence]

No they didn't.

Yes, they did.

Which is a heavily editorialized opinion piece from a right wing outlet.

The second link is a 65 page report from Congress, referenced and footnotes. Try that one

 

[NxNW]

Yes, they did.

I wonder why you can't substantiate that claim, then.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The second link is a 65 page report from Congress, referenced and footnotes. Try that one

For the nth time, the report doesn't say anything about false statements in the letter.

 

[essentialsaltes]

For the nth time, the report doesn't say anything about false statements in the letter.

But footnotes! Checkmate!

 

[Always in His Presence]

I wonder why you can't substantiate that claim, then.

There is a 65 page report that says differently - I'm not going to keep repeating myself - I already quoted it a number of times.

For the nth time, the report doesn't say anything about false statements in the letter.

Yes, it does -

But footnotes! Checkmate!

Yup - and actually reading the report seals the deal.

There are pages of conversation on what 'they think', not one describes actually looking at the information. Not one.


Think about the timeline - do you honestly believe 50 different individuals looked at and investigated the lap top in less than five days? Really?

 

[essentialsaltes]

There is a 65 page report that says differently - I'm not going to keep repeating myself - I already quoted it a number of times.
Yup - and actually reading the report seals the deal.

Funny thing I learned when skimming it -- the text of the letter does not appear.
Also, there are 13 uses of the word false (or falsely) -- none of them is attached to a quoted statement from the letter.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Example from the link provided

 

[DaisyDay]

There is a 65 page report that says differently - I'm not going to keep repeating myself - I already quoted it a number of times.

Yes, it does -

Yup - and actually reading the report seals the deal.

Your claim would be easy enough to prove, if it were true - just cite the page number and quote the relevant passage. You could also quote the passage from the 51 guys letter, if you could actually find a false statement. If you did that, you would win this argument. Just repeating "no, nuh-uh" (paraphrased) isn't convincing.

View attachment 331178

Example from the link provided

That is not an example of a false statement.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Your claim would be easy enough to prove, if it were true - just cite the page number and quote the relevant passage. You could also quote the passage from the 51 guys letter, if you could actually find a false statement. If you did that, you would win this argument. Just repeating "no, nuh-uh" (paraphrased) isn't convincing.


That is not an example of a false statement.

I apologize for not being able to help you any further - I provided the link - you read it for yourself, or don't that choice is yours.

Just continuously "no, nuh-uh" when the links are provided is just not convincing either.

 

[DaisyDay]

I apologize for not being able to help you any further - I provided the link - you read it for yourself, or don't that choice is yours.

Just continuously "no, nuh-uh" when the links are provided is just not convincing either.

Yeah, and many of us read the links. Unfortunately, I can't quote something that isn't there, the absence of the specific claim. All we can do is continue to point out that the examples you grudgingly do supply don't say which statement is false; they utterly fail to prove your claim.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Yeah, and many of us read the links. Unfortunately, I can't quote something that isn't there, the absence of the specific claim. All we can do is continue to point out that the examples you grudgingly do supply don't say which statement is false; they utterly fail to prove your claim.

Then I guess we have hit an impasse - thanks for conversing with me.

 

[wing2000]

Funny thing I learned when skimming it -- the text of the letter does not appear.
Also, there are 13 uses of the word false (or falsely) -- none of them is attached to a quoted statement from the letter.

...were you expecting an article from the "WesternJournal" to cite the actual letter? Curiously, the op choses not to either....

 

[RocksInMyHead]

There is a 65 page report that says differently - I'm not going to keep repeating myself - I already quoted it a number of times.

Yes, it does -

Where? I can't find anything in the report that supports your claims.

Yup - and actually reading the report seals the deal.

There are pages of conversation on what 'they think', not one describes actually looking at the information. Not one.

True. But they did not claim to have looked at the information.

Think about the timeline - do you honestly believe 50 different individuals looked at and investigated the lap top in less than five days? Really?

I mean, unless you're insisting that they all examine the physical laptop (which they wouldn't have been able to do, since no one was given access), the number of people is irrelevant, and 5 days would have been more than enough to review all of the publicly-available information at that point - but again, they didn't say that they'd investigated the laptop. They said that a dump of incriminating emails timed close to an election looks suspiciously like a Russian operation. Then they pointed out some known events that could have been related.

 

[essentialsaltes]

...were you expecrting an article from the "WesternJournal" to cite the actual letter? Curiously, the op choses not to either....

Expectations for WesternJournal? I'm not sure I can lower them any further.

But the Congressional report doesn't either. Not even in a footnote.

 

[SimplyMe]

I apologize for not being able to help you any further - I provided the link - you read it for yourself, or don't that choice is yours.

Just continuously "no, nuh-uh" when the links are provided is just not convincing either.

I'm sorry, what you posted does not show any false statements in the letter. Reading the letter, though it likely is better termed a statement, I see no lies.

Instead, they give their backgrounds. They also admit to having no actual knowledge, that they've seen no evidence that the emails are a Russian plot. Instead, they say that, based on their experience, it appears to look like Russian propaganda. They never claim in the letter that it is, merely that it is their opinion. And the last page, or so, of the letter is their explanation for why it looks like other Russian disinformation efforts.

So I have to agree -- particularly with how short the letter is -- what are the specific lies contained in the letter? What makes it so different from a letter from former Generals giving their opinion of the current strength of the military?

 

[Always in His Presence]

I'm sorry, what you posted does not show any false statements in the letter. Reading the letter, though it likely is better termed a statement, I see no lies.

• Instead, they give their backgrounds. They also admit to having no actual knowledge, that they've seen no evidence that the emails are a Russian plot. Instead, they say that, based on their experience, it appears to look like Russian propaganda. They never claim in the letter that it is, merely that it is their opinion. And the last page, or so, of the letter is their explanation for why it looks like other Russian disinformation efforts.

So I have to agree -- particularly with how short the letter is -- what are the specific lies contained in the letter? What makes it so different from a letter from former Generals giving their opinion of the current strength of the military?

I have to agree there - they admit they have no knowledge and they have seen no evidence. Yet it was received as Gospel truth even by some members here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yet it was received as Gospel truth even by some members here.

Can you name those posters and link to posts with them saying they felt this particular letter was "Gospel truth"?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can you name those posters and link to posts with them saying they felt this particular letter was "Gospel truth"?

As far as I can tell, nobody mentioned this letter at the time. At most there was some discussion of individual intelligence experts expressing doubts. Even in a thread entitled "Hunter Biden Expose is "Fake News"", which started a few days before the letter was published, it is not mentioned, as far as I can see.