Crazy Congress and their unending Investigations

[Dog 2.0]

Again, I’m not denying the laptop exists and has potentially interesting details of Hunters life and business.

I’m doubting a case can be built upon it because of American laws of evidence. I don’t even think you can justify opening a case based solely on the laptop due to the concept of “fruit of the poisoned tree.”

And I don’t need to disparage Rudy’s reputation. He has shown himself as one who wants to conspire with foreign powers to slander Joe Biden and help Donald Trump. Not sure why you want his last minute games to help determine the results of an election, but it’s probably because you hate America’s democracy and it’s laws.

If the laptop can be verified and the incriminating emails it contains can be verified, I'm not seeing how it's not be admissible. Add firsthand corroborating testimony from Tony Bobulinski and it looks to me like a case. You, however may be right. We shall see.

 

[Dog 2.0]

I look forward to the next time Dog Deux attempts to refute a story by disparaging the source.

Of course, he'll insist that it is different.

Next time? That suggests I have done it in the past. Can you cite an example?

 

[Steam Flyer]

Bring something other than "testimony" from the Cucker Tarlson Show

Yet another one.

You said there was "testimony." I asked by whom, to whom, this was YOUR answer.

 

[Dog 2.0]

You said there was "testimony." I asked by whom, to whom, this was YOUR answer.

Tony Bobulinski, but it was in an interview by Tucker Carlson. Does that invalidate what he said?

 

[bridhb]

Tony Bobulinski, but it was in an interview by Tucker Carlson. Does that invalidate what he said?

Was he under oath with consequences? A lot of people seem to say a lot of things that are untrue, outside the courtroom, especially those that Tucker Carlson wants to interview.

 

[Dog 2.0]

Was he under oath with consequences? A lot of people seem to say a lot of things that are untrue, outside the courtroom, especially those that Tucker Carlson wants to interview.

No, it was not under oath, that would come at trial. He was however interviewed for 5 hours by the FBI.

 

[VhmSays]

Tony Bobulinski, but it was in an interview by Tucker Carlson. Does that invalidate what he said?

"A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit against Fox News after lawyers for the network argued that no "reasonable viewer" would take the network's primetime star Tucker Carlson seriously."

Yet you'd like an interview on his show to be treated as factual?

Hunter may have used his name and Dad's position to help him in business dealings, but which POTUS/VPOTUS direct relatives have not benefited by association? He may even have claimed more influence than he had but if he actually had influence on policy he would have been wildly successful, worth hundreds of millions if not billions by now.

"Bobulinski’s overarching claim is that Joe Biden was involved in, and may have profited from, his son and brother’s business dealings in China. He called Joe Biden’s claim that he never played a role in Hunter Biden’s foreign business endeavors "a blatant lie."

Bobulinski provided some of his records to outlets like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Both reported that they do not show Joe Biden had business dealings with SinoHawk Holdings or took money from the Chinese company.

"Everything I’m saying is corroborated by emails, WhatsApp chats, agreements, documents and other evidence," he told reporters gathered Oct. 22, before gesturing to three phones that he claimed contained incriminating evidence and said he would hand over to authorities.

But till now he has not provided or made public any documents/texts/records showing Biden’s role apart from a mail in which "the big guy"/"chairman" who is supposedly Biden is supposed to get 10% in a company being formed to do business with a Chinese oil company. The follow up email has Hunter stating the "chairman" has said No to the business.
Do you have anything other than these 2 emails out of the 22000 that have been kindof "verified" (note "the big guy/chairman could have been a Chinese who they needed) and Bobulinski’s claim that Joe was involved?

 

[billy backstay]

"A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit against Fox News after lawyers for the network argued that no "reasonable viewer" would take the network's primetime star Tucker Carlson seriously."

If that is Fox News legal position then what do they call the millions of viewers who hang on to Carlson's every word as the gospel truth???

 

[VhmSays]

If that is Fox News legal position then what do they call the millions of viewers who hang on to Carlson's every word as the gospel truth???

What do shepherds call sheep which are easy to fleece?

 

[billy backstay]

What do shepherds call sheep which are easy to fleece?

Lemmings, but are these ones heading for a cliff?

 

[jerseyguy]

What do shepherds call sheep which are easy to fleece?

Parishioners?
These are my sheep, this is my flock; let’s fleece them

 

[Bus Driver]

No, it was not under oath, that would come at trial. He was however interviewed for 5 hours by the FBI.

Pardon me if I will wait to hear what he says under oath.

As for the FBI interview - we know some in the defeated ex-President's admin lied to the FBI.

If I am not mistaken, you didn't have much concern for such lies.

Some of us are anti-lie. Many of you are not.

 

[phillysailor]

If the laptop can be verified and the incriminating emails it contains can be verified, I'm not seeing how it's not be admissible. Add firsthand corroborating testimony from Tony Bobulinski and it looks to me like a case. You, however may be right. We shall see.

Of course you can’t see how it’s inadmissible, because you’ve had partisan blinders on for years. A tech recovery expert looked at the hard drive, as you well know, and found it an absolute mess of time stamps and overwriting, and therefore useless as evidence.

But dream on, and continue to use this as your only policy goal. Just like the GOP, you’ve no plan for leadership or governance.

Just more bullshit.

 

[Ishmael]

Just more bullshit.

It's all they have. No policies, no aspirations beyond trying to make Biden look bad so they can have another go at turning America into a heavily armed theocracy and make the rich richer.

 

[bridhb]

Pardon me if I will wait to hear what he says under oath.

As for the FBI interview - we know some in the defeated ex-President's admin lied to the FBI.

If I am not mistaken, you didn't have much concern for such lies.

Some of us are anti-lie. Many of you are not.

I did a quick search for transcripts of the FBI interview and could not find a listing. Are there any? He hopefully didn't lie to the FBI. Might be why Hunter is still walking around and there is no grand jury investigating "the big guy". Well, yet anyway.

 

[Bus Driver]

Wondering why, in the absence of a conviction, there is a need for an investigation?

@Dog 2.0, can you handle this question?

 

[Bus Driver]

Wonder what Rep. McCarthy has to say.....

 

[Dog 2.0]

Pardon me if I will wait to hear what he says under oath.

As for the FBI interview - we know some in the defeated ex-President's admin lied to the FBI.

If I am not mistaken, you didn't have much concern for such lies.

Some of us are anti-lie. Many of you are not.

Speaking of concern about lies. What do you make of Joe Biden's claim that he never spoke to his son about his business dealings?

 

[Dog 2.0]

Of course you can’t see how it’s inadmissible, because you’ve had partisan blinders on for years. A tech recovery expert looked at the hard drive, as you well know, and found it an absolute mess of time stamps and overwriting, and therefore useless as evidence.

But dream on, and continue to use this as your only policy goal. Just like the GOP, you’ve no plan for leadership or governance.

Just more bullshit.

Tech experts hired by the NYT and CBS disagree.

 

[Dog 2.0]

Wondering why, in the absence of a conviction, there is a need for an investigation?

@Dog 2.0, can you handle this question?

That should be obvious.
How are you coming with that example of me disparaging a source to discredit a story?