General Question

crazyguy's avatar

Even if the story about how the NY Post obtained Hunter's emails is false, are you not concerned about the content of the emails?

Asked by crazyguy (1091points) 1 week ago

The NY Post claims that tens of thousands of emails and other materials from a hard drive allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden were delivered to it by Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer. The story goes that Hunter took a few laptops that had been damaged to a Delaware Mac repair shop to recover the contents. He never went back to the shop to pick up the computers. After waiting for months, the owner of the shop took possession of the computers and was shocked to read some of the contents. He turned over the one hard drive he had been able to salvage over to the FBI. When he heard nothing from the FBI he turned over a copy of the hard drive to Rudy.

Details of the emails coming out in NY Post stories over the last few days seem very damaging to Biden’s credibility. Even if the NY Post is not being fully honest in how the hard drive came in its possession, should we ignore the content of these emails?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

70 Answers

Caravanfan's avatar

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/15/hunter-biden-laptop-giuliani/

Absolute bullshit. Or Russian propaganda. Likely both.

Jeruba's avatar

According to the reports I’ve seen, there’s no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever actually in possession of those devices.

I could phony up some emails that appear to have been sent to you and load them onto a laptop, and then park the laptop somewhere and see that it’s “discovered” at some later time. It would absolutely not prove that you had anything to do with it. This is so weak and phony that I’m amazed they even tried it.

They got so many miles out of wailing about “the emails” before that it must have seemed like a good plan to see if they could milk it again. Bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, if you ask me.

Moreover, it’s known that the Russians are good at the long game. Their schemes can be years and even decades in the making. Planting this so-called smoking gun months ago would have been a piece of cake.

AlaskaTundrea's avatar

Am I concerned? No, not in the sense you hope. I’m concerned that Team Trump once again seems to be using or being used by the Russians. Doesn’t that concern you?

Irukandji's avatar

Just to be clear, you’re asking why we aren’t concerned about the made up details of a fake story? There’s no evidence that Hunter Biden is the one who dropped off the laptop. There’s no evidence that the emails are genuine. And the fact that no one ever came back for it suggests that the laptop was a plant (assuming that there even was a laptop since all that anyone ever saw was a collection of files supposedly harvested from a hard drive).

Every visible part of the supporting “documentation” either tells us nothing or is publicly available information. Anyone can write someone’s name, publicly available phone number, and publicly available email address on a form. Nothing on the subpoena names Biden or indicates that he is suspected of anything (it could just as easily have been issued for an investigation of Giuliani). And in taped interviews, Isaac can’t keep his story straight.

So unless you are prepared to take everyone and everything at face value—in which case, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn—you need to try being a bit less credulous.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There’s something rather admirable in the inability of the Post to set tongues a wagging over some allegedly sleazy behavior on the part of Biden’s kid. It’s rather refreshing that this election will not hang on scurrilous accusations such as Russian hookers urinating on Moscow mattresses at Trump’s insistence. It is certain, nevertheless that the Trump camp will gin this nonsense up beyond tolerable limits on yet another episode of grasping at straws. Meantime, let’s consider the scenario. What if you invent a scandal and nobody shows up?

seawulf575's avatar

To date, I haven’t seen anything that says the story is NOT true. I’ve seen a lot of deflection and denial from Dems and leftists, but really no facts backing up those denials and deflections. I see @Caravanfan posted a Snopes article as proof it’s bullshit, but when I read that article, I see nothing that is a fact proving it isn’t true. I see some deflection and innuendo…that’s all. I see several efforts to say the entire thing is created, such as from @Irukandji. While it is true I could create a bunch of documents that look like e-mails, it doesn’t explain how I could create thousands of them, complete with accurate e-mail addresses, nor does it explain how I could create a sex tape with Hunter as the star. We have @AlaskaTundrea drumming the old, debunked, Russia Collusion rag as a way to deflect away from Biden.
In answer to the question, it seems that all leftists are in a panic to avoid looking at the details of the e-mails or what they might actually expose about Biden. They don’t care if they are true or not. If this were about Trump, it would be screams for impeachment and prison. Since it is a Dem involved, they don’t want to look. I’m picturing ostriches standing with heads buried in the sand.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Quite to the contrary, all the panic seems to be from the right. You 2 seem rather frantic and inordinately upset that NO ONE CARES what shows up in the New York Post. You should take this little lesson to heart, and finally appreciate what we’ve been telling YOU for years as you parade scurrilous nonsense before us. Your source matters, like it or not. It doesn’t bother me that no credible outlet denies the story. It actually speaks volumes that they prefer to ignore it. You can attempt to whip up the issue all you want, but the lesson here is that no one wants to play ball. But never mind. There are still 2 weeks left to foist some fictitious nonsense on a gullible public. Good luck.

crazyguy's avatar

Thanks all for your comments. Sadly, but as expected, all answers fell along previously exposed political leanings of the responders. I took pains in the question to disavow the details of how the NY Post obtained the emails, and tried to focus on the content of the emails.

However, some posters still discredit the admittedly murky parts of the story. Some took the view that the emails are “made up” even though the Bidens themselves have not stated that line of defense. Even if we accept the possibility of Russian involvement, wouldn’t the possibility that Biden may have been less than honest in his statements about Hunter’s relationship with Burisma not bother you?

In another question, I intend to ask about the FBI’s involvement. I do not understand that, if they were in possession of some mysterious laptop alleged to be Hunter’s, with emails that may be exculpatory in Trump’s impeachment trial, why did they not reveal the evidence?

I perfectly understand the need for further investigation of the allegations. However, I see no acknowledgement by mainstream media that there may be a problem that needs to be checked out. Especially concerning to me is the recently released email that seems to directly I,plicate “the big guy”.

LostInParadise's avatar

I am so glad that we had the Mueller investigation and impeachment to prepare us for this Russian interference. This “scandal” is going nowhere. Fivethirtyeight has Biden with an 87% chance of winning.

crazyguy's avatar

@LostInParadise I never implied that the “scandal” will have any impact on made up minds.

My only question relates to the meat of the emails.

kritiper's avatar

No. That would be a violation of his privacy.

Love_my_doggie's avatar

Let’s evaluate the chain of events concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop:

1) He had three MacBook Pros that all broke at once.

2) Instead of taking the laptops to a repair shop in Los Angeles, where Biden lives, he took them on an airplane and flew, across the country, to a shop on the east coast…

3) ...that’s owned by a blind man who can fix computers yet doesn’t get a customer’s contact information.

4) Biden forgets about all three laptops and never reclaims them.

5) The blind computer technician finds incriminating email messages, copies the hard drive, and contacts the FBI.

6) The FBI gets the laptops but does nothing with them.

7) But wait! Blind technician gives the copied hard drive to Rudy Guiliani, because of course that’s what he did!

8) After some months, Rudy gives the drive to the New York Post, which ran a story without doing any reporting work – investigating the background, verifying the drive’s authenticity, or obtaining confirmation from other sources.

I’ve been following this story, shaking my head in disbelief about the absurdity of it all, and continually being astounded by the gullibility of people.

Dutchess_III's avatar

OMG that is funny @Love_my_doggie! :D Gullibility indeed.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@crazyguy… that was kind of a crazyquestion. If the narrative is false, why would we be concerned about the content of emails that don’t exist?

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Isn’t the burden of proof on the accuser? The accused does not have to prove that they didn’t do something. The accuser has to prove that it is true.

jca2's avatar

I’d be inclined to believe things, or would want to try to believe things, if there were some proof that Hunter actually owned the laptop and/or dropped it off. A receipt showing a serial number, a signature, a credit card receipt, something. There’s nothing. Zilch. Nada. This on top of what @Love_my_doggie said.

Story is not plausible, not logical. Fake News, Russian Interference.

Dutchess_III's avatar

^^^ Why is it so hard for some people to see that??

jca2's avatar

@Dutchess_III: Because they had their hopes up that this was their “Gotcha moment.” They’re holding on to hope, and stomping their feet that few believe it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

That’s stooping pretty low. But what else would you expect from this administration.

Demosthenes's avatar

This is starting to sound like the right wing equivalent of the “Pee Tapes”. Put up or shut up is what I say. I’ll be concerned about them if they’re verified to be genuine.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Funny how when it is a Dem it’s innocent until proven guilty and when it’s Trump its guilty regardless of if he is proven innocent. I give you the entire Russia Collusion fiasco as perfect proof of that.

AlaskaTundrea's avatar

The fact Trump’s loyal followers are pushing and pushing this is far more disturbing to me than someone’s emails. Wulfie is now trying to turn it back on those who rolled their eyes at this question, myself included, by making it a “They’re picking on Trump” thing. I think I used to find this sorta question mildly amusing as they tend to follow whatever the talking points on Fox are at any given time, but they’ve become more troubling. Why? Because I want to know why they keep pushing things like this with no merit. Trump’s big problem right now is he could tell the absolute truth and given his many lies, no one will just accept it as truth. There will always be doubts. Same with these questions. Why? Why are you pushing what credible reports indicate involve Russia?

Jeruba's avatar

Suppose someone sends me a letter that says: “Thanks for getting me the combination to your boss’s safe. I got $24k out of it. Your half is in the usual place.”

Suppose I think it’s a prank and throw it in the trash or the recycle bin, and some street entrepreneur picks it out and hands it over to a reporter.

Now I’m accused in the newspaper (which is not a court) of complicity in a robbery.

Why in the world would anyone expect me to have to prove that I had no part in any crime? Anyone can write anything. There absolutely does not have to be any real-world counterpart to someone’s malicious fiction.

seawulf575's avatar

The fact is Trump’s loyal haters are pushing against this, just as they push against anything that deals with any Democrat. What amazes me is that there is a huge question of ethics and illegalities being displayed here and none of the lefties want to look at it. They were all for the Russian Collusion which was Russian disinformation, spread by Hillary and the Dems, and used by the corrupt FBI to try undoing a presidential candidate and later a duly elected POTUS. At the time, they all said it was a conspiracy theory whenever someone would dare to say it was Hillary’s opposition research that was used illegally because they were sure Trump was dirty. They bought the bullshit story hook, line, and sinker. Now that there is huge evidence mounting (FISA warrants illegally obtained, use of known suspect data from a discredited source, etc) that there was basically a coup being run, they don’t want to talk about it anymore since it has no importance in their mind. So here we have a story that shows support for Biden’s own bragging that would show total corruption and influence peddling on the part of Biden with the knowing support of Obama and it is, once again, just a conspiracy theory to those that don’t want to believe they could be that corrupt.

Jeruba's avatar

Doesn’t it bother you not to make any more sense than that?

AlaskaTundrea's avatar

I’d like to think it is out of genuine concern for our well being that you can’t let this go Wuffie, but you’re beginning to make no sense whatsoever. Throwing around will accusations does not make them proof or true. You’re not helping your case.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: @Jeruba gave a great example which is a good comparison to what we’re talking about, and you conveniently ignored it. Care to address it?

kritiper's avatar

@seawulf575 Who is corrupt??

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Sure. My answer is the same as my previous one. @Jeruba asked if it bothers me that I make no more sense than that. Let’s review. The original question is “Even if the story about how the NY Post obtained Hunter’s emails, are you not concerned about the content of the emails?” The answers are all over the place but basically are saying that no one wants to even consider if the emails are real. They don’t think it is worth looking into. So I have to ask: Does that make any sense whatsoever? It isn’t just because it is a “wild accusation with no evidence” since these same people swore up and down to the veracity of the Russian Collusion which was, even on its face, more bogus than this seems with even less facts. So it isn’t the potential false information. You guys buy into this all the time.
So the responses have another obvious answer: those trying to discount it don’t want to believe it. They have nothing to counter the idea that not only were there emails but also a sex tape that came off this laptop. Kinda hard to fake. The basic claim is that it is fake and that’s that! No sense even looking at it any more. But to get to that point, you have to suspend all questions. You have to ignore facts. You have to work to avoid looking at this. And you have to be willing to support a guy that might be more crooked than just about every other president we have ever had, and you want to put him into that job. So sticking with the original question, and @Jeruba‘s question, I think that same question needs to be answered by you and @Jeruba. Doesn’t it bother you to make no sense?

stanleybmanly's avatar

But the irony of Trump in place and YOU complaining about the possibility of a crook replacing him is almost too absurd for consideration.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly As is the irony of you complaining endlessly about Trump being a crook and then trying desperately to avoid seeing the one you are defending is just as big a crook, if not bigger.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The difference of course being that a PROVEN and AUTHENTIC crook now HAS the job.

Response moderated
jca2's avatar

@seawulf575 This is what @Jeruba wrote which you did not address. You addressed her comment about making sense but not this one: “Suppose someone sends me a letter that says: “Thanks for getting me the combination to your boss’s safe. I got $24k out of it. Your half is in the usual place.” Suppose I think it’s a prank and throw it in the trash or the recycle bin, and some street entrepreneur picks it out and hands it over to a reporter. Now I’m accused in the newspaper (which is not a court) of complicity in a robbery. Why in the world would anyone expect me to have to prove that I had no part in any crime? Anyone can write anything. There absolutely does not have to be any real-world counterpart to someone’s malicious fiction.”

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 I would agree with the idea that anyone could write anything is entirely true. But there are some differences with that and what was found. First off, when that happens, you get rid of the email. You don’t keep it in your mail file. Also, when there numerous emails that address the same thing, from the same person, and they are all kept it stops looking like it is just a scam and begins looking like a conversation or an interaction.
But in the end, let’s consider the risk of this situation. Risk is the chance that something would go wrong compared with the impact of the consequences. So let’s say you are pretty sure this is all a hoax. That would make the chance very low. But consider for a moment that it might be true. If it IS true, then doing nothing is a horrendous consequence. You are allowing what is a known criminal to run for the office of POTUS. So that makes the consequences very high. When you look at those two together, NOT looking into this issue is just foolhardy. If it is a scam, it seems it would be easily enough proven and exposed as the fraud. Just opining it is a fraud is not proof. Proof would be a series of facts that show the duplicity of the information. If it is not a scam, then you have time to avoid the serious consequences. So why is it that you folks on the left don’t want to even look at these things?

seawulf575's avatar

@Jeruba Thank you, m’dear. It isn’t until Tuesday, but I am celebrating this weekend.

crazyguy's avatar

As expected, answers to my question have missed the mark. Almost all responders have chosen to speak about the unlikelihood of the reported circumstances being true rather than address my question.

Let me repeat the question:
“Even if the story about how the NY Post obtained Hunter’s emails is false, are you not concerned about the content of the emails?”

In other words, I am asking only about the content, not the method of discovery. I’ll be the first one to admit that the NY Post’s story of how the laptop came into their possession is probably false. However, I am more concerned about three factors:

1. Authenticity: Do the emails and other leaked material seem authentic? If so, is a full investigation warranted?

2. Content of the emails: Provided authenticity can be established (it is interesting that the Bidens have not commented about authenticity), do the emails fill some holes in currently acknowledged facts?

3. Is any factor sufficient by itself to affect a voter?

With that said let me respond too the individual responders.

crazyguy's avatar

@Caravanfan Your answer correlates almost exactly with Joe Biden’s.

@Jeruba Your answer basically says that authenticity is very much in doubt. I agree that further investigation is needed. However, I guess the difference between our points of view is as follows: I am assuming that the content is authentic, while you do not.

@AlaskaTundrea Anybody not at all concerned about the content of the emails is admitting to being brainwashed.

@Irukandji You are raising legitimate questions about authenticity of the information. I agree that we need a fuller investigation, perhaps of a better calibre than the one accorded the Russia dossier.

@kritiper Let me get this straight: you are more concerned about Biden’s privacy than the possibility that he may have accepted a bribe?

@Love_my_doggie @Dutchess_III You guys are answering a question that was not asked.

@Dutchess_III Most journalists are taught to protect their sources. Why is this story any less credible than the Trump hit jobs attributed to anonymous sources?

crazyguy's avatar

@jca2 The FBI or any other investigative agency cannot investigate every unfounded allegation. However, an allegation with substantial meat needs to be investigated. I personally think the Post story would have received more traction if the emails were attributed to anonymous sources close to the Bidens, instead of the long murky story. Your second post is questioning the source, not the contents. Very unlike how you approach leaks from the White House.

crazyguy's avatar

@AlaskaTundrea I asked the question because the content of the emails seems authentic to me. The story about how the emails were obtained is just as murky as any attribution to anonymous sources in the White House. It would be nice if some of the Biden supporters would answer the question as asked.

@stanleybmanly If you invent a scandal, make sure it is about Trump. Otherwise nobody will show up!

@Jeruba You posed a reasonable scenario. Let me add to that. Suppose that same person sent you 10,000 letters some of which had some credible information?

@seawulf575 As usual, you make sense. Do you agree that the NY Post should have said they got the emails from anonymous sources close to the Bidens?

crazyguy's avatar

@AlaskaTundrea My only concern is fairness. Allegations made agains one candidate deserve the same scrutiny as so far unproven allegations against the POTUS. Do you think they should be just discarded?

@seawulf575 @jca2 I agree with both of your posts. There is definitely a concern about authenticity, but it does deserve further investigation. And if the FBI needs more than 10 MONTHS to investigate, perhaps there is more deep state involvement than expected.

seawulf575's avatar

@crazyguy No, I don’t believe claiming it was from an anonymous source would have been better. I certainly would have been suspicious of that. And the obvious answer is “of course it’s from an anonymous source…that’s what all lies say!”. As odd as their story is, I would actually believe that at least most of it is true. And the reason is that much of it can be too easily debunked if it is a work of fiction. How does it help the NYP to create a story that is instantly debunked with actual facts? It hurts them more than it would be worth. Claiming an anonymous source or printing such story as they did if it was fiction would both shoot their credibility down.

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 Thanks for your answer. I think you are right, except that the story seems to have raised more heckles than all the NY Times stories based on anonymous sources in the White House.

First, let’s look at the easily verifiable facts in the NY Post Story.

1. There is indeed a MAC repair shop in Delaware as described.
2. The shop is owned by a visually challenged Trump supporter.

The murkier parts of the story:

1. The summons provided by the computer shop owner contain a date for the Grand Jury proceeding. But there is nothing in the Summomns to indicate the hearing is in connection with the Biden investigation. The copy I saw on NY Post is missing Attachment 1 where presumably the seized computer is listed.

2. The link to Giuliani.

jca2's avatar

@crazyguy: I’d be more inclined to give this a second thought if there were some proof of the computer being owned by Hunter. A receipt, a credit card, something with a serial number or signature. Without that, it’s not worth giving this a second thought, in my opinion.

It’s like someone saying that I did something wrong while in the state of South Dakota. Since I’ve never been in the state of South Dakota, I wouldn’t worry about it. First show me proof of what I did wrong or even being in the state of South Dakota, otherwise, get off my lawn.

crazyguy's avatar

@jca2 Every time I dismiss you, you come back with a meaningful post! I agree that establishing authenticity of the emails is important; even though I am less concerned about the computer.

I think there are some indications the emails are authentic:

1. The sheer number of them. There are over 10,000.
2. As you would expect the vast majority of emails relate to trivial, everyday subjects.
3. The Bidens have not claimed, as far as I know, that the emails are fake.
4. The alleged meeting with Vadym Pozharskiy does not appear on Biden’s official records. Other than that fact, neither Biden nor his campaign have denied the meeting.

The emails do not conflict with any known facts.

LostInParadise's avatar

As for sheer number of emails, it would not be difficult for Russian agents to generate them using a computer.

Do the Bidens really have to say that the emails are fake? Should they have told the FBI not to look for a Russian connection because the emails are genuine?

Why didn’t the shop owner ask to be paid? What business did he have poking around on someone else’s compuyer? He is a rabid Trump supporter. You think he might be cooperating with the Russians?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, the whole premise is ridiculous. It’s very hard to take it seriously, which may account for the fact that you don’t like the answers being given.

crazyguy's avatar

@LostInParadise I am afraid your answer lacks any common sense.

1. What you suggest is possible. That is why the FBI should investigate.
2. If the emails are fake, yes, I would expect the Bidens to say so emphatically. If they may be genuine, yes, the Bidens should tell the FBI.
3. I do not care (as suggested in the question – it is good to read the question twice (or more often)).

crazyguy's avatar

@Dutchess_III I have no idea what you mean. I am posing the following scenario:

1. Somebody just gave you a bunch of information to read and do with as you please.
2. You can spend months grilling the person about the source of the information.
3. Or you can go through the information and decide if it meets the smell test or not for authenticity.

I am asking which one of 2 or 3 would you choose and why?

Dutchess_III's avatar

If it was up to me I’d go with #2. I’m a fact checker like that.

Demosthenes's avatar

For me it’s more #4 Skim through the information and decide if I’m interested enough to investigate it or its source further.

I’m probably not, for example, going to spend a lot of time investigating information given to me about why the earth is flat.

crazyguy's avatar

@Demosthenes To each his/her own. Me, if I am given a convincing set of facts and/or evidence that contradicts my long-held views, I would be willing to not only investigate further but also to accept the conclusion.

@Dutchess_III OK. To each his/her own. However, if you find out the source of information is all wrong, but the information itself seems credible, would you discard and/or disregard the information?

LostInParadise's avatar

If the Russians hacked the emails, they could insert their own and selectively remove others, in which case the contents don’t mean anything.

Demosthenes's avatar

@crazyguy Well, whether or not it’s “convincing” is a judgment I can only come to after investigating it further. I can’t know it’s convincing on the surface. What’s convincing to one person may not be convincing to another. I don’t have access to the kind of information I’d need to determine that these emails are convincing. In which case whether I believe them to be indicative of wrongdoing or not would almost be more a matter of faith.

crazyguy's avatar

@LostInParadise You are perfectly right. It would then be up to the Bidens to correct the false ones…and acknowledge the genuine ones.

@Demosthenes My choice of words was incorrect. I should have said “credible” instead of “convincing”.

jca2's avatar

@crazyguy: The Bidens should look through and “correct” over 10,000 emails?

crazyguy's avatar

@jca2 Most emails are in chains of 10+ emails. Not every single email has to be reviewed. Sometimes it is enough to look at just the sender and the recipients.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The problem with this line of thought is with the sleaze involved with the matter. For one thing, the criminal aspects (if any) of these purported emails will almost certainly have a thorough going over. They just might not be settled in time for the election without the public whipping up of the issue, which is the all too obvious motive for planting the story in the New York Post. Anyone with the brain of a muskrat knows that this is EXACTLY the goal of this sordid nonsense, and I believe it a refreshing tribute to decency that the attempt is going nowhere regarding that goal.

jca2's avatar

Echoes of 2016, with Hillary and the FBI email drama, which turned out to be nothing in the end, just smoke and mirrors.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yeah, but it worked @jca2.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Actually, the problem with Hillary and the emails actually started long before the 2016 election. It was identified actually several years before that. the Obama administration squelched any investigations into it. When it finally became a horrendous weight around her neck, Comey came out with his new law…the one that says her “intent” mattered. The actually law says gross negligence is not an excuse for losing control of classified materials. The corrupt FBI and Obama’s AG decided based on Comey’s rewrite of the law that no crime was committed. In the end, she was guilty as sin and should have gone to jail. But was protected by a corrupt administration.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It was all bullshit. Can’t you see that?

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III 18 USC 793(f) states: ”(f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Remember the scramble to get Comey to change his statement from saying Hillary showed Gross Negligence to Extreme carelessness? That’s because of this section. They mean the same, but it specifically states that gross negligence is not an excuse. They found hundreds of examples of classified materials. Hell, they even found them on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

So they concluded that she violated this law…they just chose not to say so. They decided to say “intent” was a factor which it is specifically not. So if you are saying the cover up and failure to hold her accountable is bullshit, you are correct.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Every single politician is just as guilty.

crazyguy's avatar

@stanleybmanly A typical case of shooting the messenger because you don’t like the message.

@jca2 “Just smoke and mirrors” – yes, that’s all it was! Thanks to Comey.

crazyguy's avatar

@Dutchess_III The small amount of respect I was developing for you is fast disappearing because of your last two comments on this thread.

1.It was all bullshit. Can’t you see that?
2.Every single politician is just as guilty.

Enough said.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Oh well. My heart is breaking @crazyguy.

Response moderated
stanleybmanly's avatar

@crazyguy What should you do when the message is a lie and the messenger notorious for concocting such lies? No one advocates that the messenger be shot, merely that both he and his message be ignored.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Relevant.

Giuliani chose to release the non issue to the Post because other magazines would scrutinize it too much.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther