Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How’s about a timestamp for when I should start to pay attention?The information that you seek is in the video. If you watch it again; I have confidence that you can comprehend it.
That's quite a comprehensive collection of valuable information concerning the authenticity of the HD.- The FBI gave the repair place a receipt for the laptop
- The repair place shows a receipt signed by Hunter for the laptop
- Multiple private pictures of Hunter smoking drugs - semi conscious, and with woman of ill repute have been shown from the laptop
- Multiple emails from Hunter's private server have been produced and shown from the laptop
- Hunter's former business partner came forward authenticating the emails from the laptop
- Copies of the hard drive from the laptop have been entered into congressional office
- The NYTimes has verified the laptop's existence and authenticated some of the material from the laptop
- Hunter has NEVER ONCE denied the existence of or authenticity of the laptop
- Even Adam Schiff has spoken about the existence of the laptop
And yet - some question it's existence. Remarkable
How’s about a timestamp for when I should start to pay attention?
So the charge/thread is about how Democrats had asserted that the RHB laptop might have been “Russian disinformation” but the actual “Russian disinformation” was that the laptop was “Russian disinformation”?Transcript
2:45
on July 13 2020 then majority minority
2:49
leader Schumer Senator Warner then
2:52
speaker Pelosi and then chairman Schiff
2:55
sent a letter with a classified
2:58
attachment to the FBI
3:01
that letter expressed a purported belief
3:04
that Congress was the subject of a
3:07
foreign disinformation campaign
3:11
the latter was targeted at the Johnson
3:13
Grassley investigation
3:16
however
3:18
the classified attachment included
3:21
unclassified element that attempted and
3:26
failed to tie our work to a Russian
3:29
agent named Andre derkash
3:33
unsurprisingly those unclassified
3:36
elements were leaked to the press to
3:40
support a false campaign accusing
3:43
Senator Johnson of me of relying on
3:46
material from a Russian agent and thus
3:49
advancing Russian disinformation
3:53
of course it was pure nonsense that the
3:58
irresponsible media portrayed this all
4:01
as the truth
4:04
guess what then
4:06
chairman Chef claimed without any
4:08
evidence whatsoever that our oversight
4:11
work was rooted in Russian
4:13
disinformation
4:15
of course you know he conveniently left
4:18
out that our oversight work was actually
4:21
rooted in official U.S government and
4:25
Obama administration records
4:28
then guess what Senator Blumenthal also
4:31
wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post
4:34
accusing our investigation of quote
4:37
perpetuating Russian disinformation in
4:41
the U.S Senate end of Cold and then
4:44
guess what minority leader Schumer and
4:47
then ranking member Wyden tried to offer
4:50
a resolution in the Senate disparaging
4:54
our Biden investigation
4:56
they in a sense were basically calling
4:59
us Russian Stooges
5:02
pretty simple
5:04
that violated Senate rules in their
5:07
efforts and of course were appropriately
5:09
shut down
5:11
on July the 16th 2020 mere days after
5:15
the July 13th letter then ranking member
5:19
members Wyden and Peters wrote a letter
5:22
to me and Senator Johnson asking for a
5:26
briefing from the FBI's foreign
5:29
influence task force our staff
5:33
and the ranking member staff had already
5:36
now remember we had already received a
5:39
briefing
5:40
March of 2020 that put the issue to rest
5:45
so why another briefing the point being
5:49
there was no real purpose for another
5:52
briefing let alone a member level
5:54
briefing other than to further undermine
5:58
our investigation
6:00
some of our Democratic colleagues
6:02
weren't interested in anything but using
6:05
the briefing to try and destroy our
6:08
investigation
6:09
but at these at these Democrats
6:13
insistence
6:14
the FBI caved
6:17
in August 2020
6:19
Senator Johnson and I had that Infamous
6:22
briefing from the FBI that was needless
6:25
and then as we had feared the contents
6:30
of that briefing were later leaked to
6:33
The Washington Post even though the FBI
6:36
had promised us confidentiality
6:40
that leak outrageously and inaccurately
6:44
connected that FBI briefing to our
6:47
investigation in another effort to
6:51
falsely label our good government
6:54
oversight work as Russian disinformation
7:00
On The Wall Street Journal editorial
7:02
board was on top of it because that
7:05
board did the right thing and wrote a
7:08
piece about the briefing titled quote
7:11
the FBI's dubious briefing did the
7:16
bureau set up two GOP Senators at the
7:20
behest of Democrats end of quote so
7:23
simply put the briefing was unnecessary
7:28
and completely irrelevant to the
7:31
substance of our investigation it was
7:34
only done because the Democrats wanted
7:37
to do so they could try and smear us and
7:41
the FBI wrongly the FBI wrongly did
7:44
their biddy to this very day director
7:48
Ray refuses to provide Senator Johnson
7:51
and me as constitutional officers
7:54
records relating to that briefing
7:57
including the alleged intelligence basis
8:00
for IT director Ray has consistently
8:04
failed to perform duties required of his
8:07
position
8:09
now another example of this Democratic
8:12
disinformation campaign involved a
8:15
George Kent
8:16
former State Department Deputy assistant
8:20
general Senator Johnson and I ran a
8:23
transcribed interview with George Kent
8:27
before the interview Democrats
8:31
acquired material from that Russian
8:34
agent the same one that I mentioned
8:36
earlier
8:37
at the interview Democrats not
8:39
Republicans Democrats asked Mr Kent
8:42
about the same material Mr Kent said it
8:47
was
8:48
disinformation now think about that
8:52
after all the spears the Democrats were
8:55
throwing at the Two of Us
8:57
in the end it was the Democrats who
9:00
introduced racial disinformation from a
9:03
Russian agent into the investigative
9:06
record as an exhibit a foreign aged
9:11
whom our own intelligent committee
9:13
warned was actively seeking to influence
9:17
U.S politics
9:19
not me or Senator Johnson not our staff
9:23
it was the Democrats who inserted
9:26
disinformation from the Russians into
9:29
our official record
So there you have it, Who, What, When, Where, and How. We can only speculate as to Why.
I'd like to hear your best guess.
The laptop as described by certain posters clearly does not exist, there is nothing remarkable about me pointing out the obvious.- The FBI gave the repair place a receipt for the laptop
- The repair place shows a receipt signed by Hunter for the laptop
And yet - some question it's existence. Remarkable
You might find Post #60 to be informative.The laptop as described by Disciple Clint clearly does not exist, there is nothing remarkable about me pointing out the obvious.
I totally agree that FBI has a laptop.
No.So the charge/thread is about how Democrats had asserted that the RHB laptop might have been “Russian disinformation” but the actual “Russian disinformation” was that the laptop was “Russian disinformation”?
Maybe it would help if you heard it from Grassley himself, instead of reading the transcript.No wonder I am conflused.
Strange, I give a reply to Post #60 and you tell me to read it because I might find it informativeYou might find Post #60 to be informative.
What people? What magical properties?Strange, I give a reply to Post #60 and you tell me to read it because I might find it informative
I totally accept that there is a laptop and there are some verified emails by Hunter Bidens emails
But if people tell the laptop has magical properties then my response is that the laptop does not exist.
I served on a grand jury. That's just not how they work.Where is your evidence to support this strawman rebuttal?
I served on a grand jury. That's just not how they work.
And what are you talking about "strawman"??
I'm pretty sure that they can call any witnesses that they wish, and ask any questions that they wish, so long as it is relevant to the case.
they can't subpoena just anyone they want.
I have first hand experience of how a grand jury works. Maybe it's possible they might be slightly different, but I presume they are pretty much the same across the country. So, it seems to me that you could just look up the laws concerning grand juries where ever this one was empaneled and prove me wrong. I'm betting you're not going to do that though.So now you proclaim that all grand juries work the same? Where is your evidence?
Here is what I said:
Here is what you said:
That's not what I said.
OK, so you have a hunch. I have a hunch too. I already presented my hunch. I didn't state my hunch as though it was a fact as you seemed to do. I have another hunch too. I have a hunch that my hunch is more accurate than your hunch.I have first hand experience of how a grand jury works. Maybe it's possible they might be slightly different, but I presume they are pretty much the same across the country. So, it seems to me that you could just look up the laws concerning grand juries where ever this took place and prove me wrong. I'm betting you're not going to do that though
Meh, you're probably right. Carry on.OK, so you have a hunch. I have a hunch too. I already presented my hunch. I didn't state my hunch as though it was a fact as you seemed to do. I have another hunch too. I have a hunch that my hunch is more accurate than your hunch.
BTW, I looked up the law before I presented my hunch, just to make sure that my memory hadn't failed me. I was studying the power of grand juries a couple of decades ago; and I wanted to get a pulse on whether my memory served me well.
You are free to look up the law to discredit my hunch if you wish; but your hunch doesn't trump my hunch.
Although a grand jury may have the right to subpoena and to have persons and documents called before it, this is almost always limited to evidence and witnesses presented by a prosecutor.Grand Juries do not "call witnesses." Better?
Link, please.- The FBI gave the repair place a receipt for the laptop
Link, please.- The repair place shows a receipt signed by Hunter for the laptop
Many photos of him have been faked.- Multiple private pictures of Hunter smoking drugs - semi conscious, and with woman of ill repute have been shown from the laptop
Many emails have been faked.- Multiple emails from Hunter's private server have been produced and shown from the laptop
Link, please.- Hunter's former business partner came forward authenticating the emails from the laptop
Which office?- Copies of the hard drive from the laptop have been entered into congressional office
The NYT doesn't have the authority to authenticate it.- The NYTimes has verified the laptop's existence and authenticated some of the material from the laptop
Nor has he confirmed its existence.- Hunter has NEVER ONCE denied the existence of or authenticity of the laptop
Schiff doesn't have the authority to authenticate it.- Even Adam Schiff has spoken about the existence of the laptop
I've yet to see a photo of it, or any other conclusive evidence of its existence. It's like the snipe that everyone talks about but nobody has actually seen.And yet - some question it's existence. Remarkable
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?