‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 > 
 
   
 

UkraineGate—Inconvenient Facts

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
24 October 2020 23:09
 
weird buffalo - 24 October 2020 02:49 PM

You should practice those research skills.

As a matter of fact, I did find that article yesterday and read it in its entirety. But I figured it couldn’t have been the one you were referencing because in no way, shape or form does it “debunk Bubolinski’s claims.” Where did you get that idea?

Mr. Gilliar told the Journal: “I would like to clear up any speculation that former Vice President Biden was involved with the 2017 discussions about our potential business structure. I am unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former Vice President. The activity in question never delivered any project revenue.”

In the correspondence provided by Mr. Bobulinski, an email he received from Mr. Gilliar in May 2017 proposed a possible equity arrangement for the five partners. The email references “10 held by H for the big guy?” Mr. Bobulinski said the “H” referred to Hunter Biden and the “big guy” was Joe Biden. Mr. Gilliar didn’t respond to a request for comment, nor did the other partner in the venture, Mr. Walker.

We have two individuals, both involved with Sinohawk Holdings, giving two slightly different accounts. One claims that the “big guy” getting 10% is Joe Biden; the other says he’s “unaware” of Biden’s involvement. It seems that you have as much trouble with the definition of “debunk” as you do with the definitions of “speech” and “violence.” Maybe you should invest in a dictionary.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
25 October 2020 14:59
 

Of course you think that.  You WANT it to be true, so you think that a claim of it being true is proof.

The additional evidence does not corroborate his story.  Since the evidence outside of his claim doesn’t even suggest that his claim is true, we can consider the claim to be false… until additional evidence is provided.

Show me evidence of a payment to Joe Biden.

For example, we have evidence of the Chinese government paying Trump.  Can you provide actual evidence of something similar happening with Biden?  That isn’t based on emails written in code and having to be told what the code means, but with Trump we’ve got legit records of payments.  And this isn’t “but Trump did it worse”, I am giving a specific example of what we should consider evidence.  Actual financial records that indicate what happened.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
25 October 2020 16:20
 
weird buffalo - 25 October 2020 02:59 PM

Of course you think that.  You WANT it to be true, so you think that a claim of it being true is proof.

The additional evidence does not corroborate his story.  Since the evidence outside of his claim doesn’t even suggest that his claim is true, we can consider the claim to be false… until additional evidence is provided.

Show me evidence of a payment to Joe Biden.

For example, we have evidence of the Chinese government paying Trump.  Can you provide actual evidence of something similar happening with Biden?  That isn’t based on emails written in code and having to be told what the code means, but with Trump we’ve got legit records of payments.  And this isn’t “but Trump did it worse”, I am giving a specific example of what we should consider evidence.  Actual financial records that indicate what happened.

As usual, you’re resorting to obfuscation again, in a lame attempt to distract from the fact that the WSJ article does not “debunk Bubolinski’s claims.” That “additional evidence does not corroborate his story” (I assume you mean Gilliar’s statement to WSJ, in which he said he was “unaware” of Biden’s involvement) in no way “debunk’s Bubolinski’s claims.” You obviously failed to look up the definition of “debunk,” didn’t you. Thereby making yourself look even more foolish than you already did before. Do you enjoy playing the fool?

ASD: “Some swans are black.”

Professor Snowflake: “I’m unaware of any black swans. Therefore, I’ve ‘debunked’ your claim that some swans are black.”

Furthermore, the testimony of a person directly involved with Biden’s pay-to-play scheme—Bubolinski—is indeed evidence that Biden lied about not being involved.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  4103
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
25 October 2020 16:55
 

This hasn’t been able to gain any traction beyond the accusation stage and the accusers are the same crew of compulsive liars with a few new thuggish recruits.  Hunter Biden isn’t on the ballot.  In lieu of evidence, against Joe, it seems like the predominant issue is defeating fascism.  Then the focus can be on defeating neoliberalism.  It’s what a skeptically minded a-pox-on-both-yer-houses type of person would be inclined to do anyway.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
25 October 2020 17:20
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 25 October 2020 04:20 PM
weird buffalo - 25 October 2020 02:59 PM

Of course you think that.  You WANT it to be true, so you think that a claim of it being true is proof.

The additional evidence does not corroborate his story.  Since the evidence outside of his claim doesn’t even suggest that his claim is true, we can consider the claim to be false… until additional evidence is provided.

Show me evidence of a payment to Joe Biden.

For example, we have evidence of the Chinese government paying Trump.  Can you provide actual evidence of something similar happening with Biden?  That isn’t based on emails written in code and having to be told what the code means, but with Trump we’ve got legit records of payments.  And this isn’t “but Trump did it worse”, I am giving a specific example of what we should consider evidence.  Actual financial records that indicate what happened.

As usual, you’re resorting to obfuscation again, in a lame attempt to distract from the fact that the WSJ article does not “debunk Bubolinski’s claims.” That “additional evidence does not corroborate his story” (I assume you mean Gilliar’s statement to WSJ, in which he said he was “unaware” of Biden’s involvement) in no way “debunk’s Bubolinski’s claims.” You obviously failed to look up the definition of “debunk,” didn’t you. Thereby making yourself look even more foolish than you already did before. Do you enjoy playing the fool?

ASD: “Some swans are black.”

Professor Snowflake: “I’m unaware of any black swans. Therefore, I’ve ‘debunked’ your claim that some swans are black.”

Furthermore, the testimony of a person directly involved with Biden’s pay-to-play scheme—Bubolinski—is indeed evidence that Biden lied about not being involved.

Your attack is against me… not talking about the issue at hand.

You’re right, it hasn’t been proven to be impossible for Biden (joe) to have gotten any money from China.  But so far… no link has actually been established.  Bobulinski claims there is one, but he doesn’t actually prove it.  Looking at the other records available, his claim appears false.  Please tell me what you are seeing that supports his claim.

edit:
Yes, I agree that it is a logical possibility that Biden got money from China through corrupt means.
No, I do not agree that any of the evidence currently available indicates that it did happen.  In fact, the total available evidence indicates that it did NOT happen.

[ Edited: 25 October 2020 17:40 by weird buffalo]
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
26 October 2020 19:13
 
weird buffalo - 25 October 2020 05:20 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 25 October 2020 04:20 PM
weird buffalo - 25 October 2020 02:59 PM

Of course you think that.  You WANT it to be true, so you think that a claim of it being true is proof.

The additional evidence does not corroborate his story.  Since the evidence outside of his claim doesn’t even suggest that his claim is true, we can consider the claim to be false… until additional evidence is provided.

Show me evidence of a payment to Joe Biden.

For example, we have evidence of the Chinese government paying Trump.  Can you provide actual evidence of something similar happening with Biden?  That isn’t based on emails written in code and having to be told what the code means, but with Trump we’ve got legit records of payments.  And this isn’t “but Trump did it worse”, I am giving a specific example of what we should consider evidence.  Actual financial records that indicate what happened.

As usual, you’re resorting to obfuscation again, in a lame attempt to distract from the fact that the WSJ article does not “debunk Bubolinski’s claims.” That “additional evidence does not corroborate his story” (I assume you mean Gilliar’s statement to WSJ, in which he said he was “unaware” of Biden’s involvement) in no way “debunk’s Bubolinski’s claims.” You obviously failed to look up the definition of “debunk,” didn’t you. Thereby making yourself look even more foolish than you already did before. Do you enjoy playing the fool?

ASD: “Some swans are black.”

Professor Snowflake: “I’m unaware of any black swans. Therefore, I’ve ‘debunked’ your claim that some swans are black.”

Furthermore, the testimony of a person directly involved with Biden’s pay-to-play scheme—Bubolinski—is indeed evidence that Biden lied about not being involved.

Your attack is against me… not talking about the issue at hand.

You’re right, it hasn’t been proven to be impossible for Biden (joe) to have gotten any money from China.  But so far… no link has actually been established.  Bobulinski claims there is one, but he doesn’t actually prove it.  Looking at the other records available, his claim appears false.  Please tell me what you are seeing that supports his claim.

edit:
Yes, I agree that it is a logical possibility that Biden got money from China through corrupt means.
No, I do not agree that any of the evidence currently available indicates that it did happen.  In fact, the total available evidence indicates that it did NOT happen.

Is “proven to be impossible” the same as “debunk?” I think so. Good to see you finally figured out that the WSJ article does not “debunk Bubolinkski’s claims.”

Whether Joe Biden got money is a separate issue than whether he lied about being involved. He’s claimed repeatedly that he never met any of his son’s business associates and that he never discussed Hunter’s “business” with him. But the emails and Bobulinski’s statement (as well as pictures that have been unearthed separately) are clear evidence to the contrary. Joe Biden is a liar. Which begs the question: why would he lie about this if he didn’t have something at best unethical, at worst illegal to hide?

It’s so obvious what the Bidens were up to here, but you’re just as gullible (or maybe just as cynically partisan) as your counterparts in the Trump camp. Do you agree with the Trumpkins when they say that the Mueller report “exonerated” Trump because it found no evidence that he colluded with the Russians? Was it “proven to be impossible” that he colluded? Did the Mueller report “debunk” that claim? As Biden is overly fond of saying, “Come on.”

Political parties are like religions, and you are a true believer.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
26 October 2020 20:01
 

Except we have hard evidence that multiple people in the Trump 2016 campaign did coordinate with Russian operatives.  The Mueller report found plenty of evidence and multiple people have been convicted of crimes.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
26 October 2020 21:22
 
weird buffalo - 26 October 2020 08:01 PM

Except we have hard evidence that multiple people in the Trump 2016 campaign did coordinate with Russian operatives.  The Mueller report found plenty of evidence and multiple people have been convicted of crimes.

Ha ha, you and your Trumpy counterparts are mirror images of each other. The executive summary to volume 1 of the Mueller report states:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Apparently, your idea of “research” is to watch Rachel Maddow on TV.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
26 October 2020 23:58
 

And yet people are in jail.  It’s almost like there’s more to the story than that one quote.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
27 October 2020 00:33
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
28 October 2020 22:12
 

You’re missing the point. The Mueller report, despite the aforementioned quote from the executive summary, does not “debunk” claims that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. (You’re correct about that! Pat yourself on the back for reaching the obvious conclusion.) Nevertheless, gullible Trump supporters believe that it does.

You’re just as gullible when it comes to Joe Biden’s influence peddling scheme. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

And yes, the Clintons were probably doing the same thing. Why else would Hillary have deleted all those emails, knowing full well that doing so would make her look guilty as hell? Because she knew that gullible fools like you would never reach the obvious conclusion.

The only difference between you and your counterparts on the right is the flavor of Kool-Aid you’re drinking.

[ Edited: 28 October 2020 22:14 by Antisocialdarwinist]
 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
29 October 2020 08:17
 

You’re missing the point…

The Mueller investigation has resulted in MULTIPLE people being convicted of crimes.

This investigation into Joe Biden is more similar to the Republican investigation into Benghazi.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7420
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
29 October 2020 13:58
 
weird buffalo - 29 October 2020 08:17 AM

You’re missing the point…

The Mueller investigation has resulted in MULTIPLE people being convicted of crimes.

This investigation into Joe Biden is more similar to the Republican investigation into Benghazi.

I’m unaware of any “investigation” into Joe Biden. And while the Mueller investigation convicted people of obstruction of justice, it uncovered no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia: the investigation’s original raison d’etre. Which is why your gullible counterparts insist the whole investigation was a “hoax.”

Face it dude, you’re no different from the Trumpies: just as gullible, just as partisan and every bit as annoying. Winston Churchill once said that the best argument against democracy was a five minute conversation with the average voter. Have you voted yet?

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
29 October 2020 17:21
 

Senate investigation into Hunter found no evidence of it having an effect on US policy.

Collusion isn’t a legal term of art, so your semantic defense of “no collusion” sounds really stupid when people were convicted of crimes.  You sound like you are a Trumpie when you say it.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3311
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
01 November 2020 01:02
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 29 October 2020 01:58 PM
weird buffalo - 29 October 2020 08:17 AM

You’re missing the point…

The Mueller investigation has resulted in MULTIPLE people being convicted of crimes.

This investigation into Joe Biden is more similar to the Republican investigation into Benghazi.

I’m unaware of any “investigation” into Joe Biden. And while the Mueller investigation convicted people of obstruction of justice, it uncovered no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia: the investigation’s original raison d’etre. Which is why your gullible counterparts insist the whole investigation was a “hoax.”

Face it dude, you’re no different from the Trumpies: just as gullible, just as partisan and every bit as annoying. Winston Churchill once said that the best argument against democracy was a five minute conversation with the average voter. Have you voted yet?

you clearly have never heard the names of Manafort or Flynn before.

 

 
 
‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 >