• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Bidengate Breaks... err... down

I was only pointing out the irony of having those who see it as an absolute right to individual ownership turning a blind eye to the issue when the individual gun owner is the son of a Democratic president.
Can you imagine the billions of Rubles the NRA would pony up for the defense if say, Don Jr was indicted for falsely answering “no” to a drug question on a gun purchase application? The cries of “weaponized DOJ!” would echo till 2026.
 
...
Those may not be the same thing, but I don't think there is any good way to test the theory. In any case, the Second Amendment has only been treated as an individual, rather than collective right, since the 5-4 Heller ruling. The majority now would be larger, for obvious reasons. It's just ironic that Hunter Biden might join with the second amendment fundamentalists in his defense at the same time that second amendment fundamentalists are loudly saying nothing in his defense.
Then ban guns for anyone who consumes alcohol. It's the one that's most dangerous for having a gun.

Who said anything about banning guns? Why do these discussions always go to gun bans, which is not even relevant to my post? The point I made was about the Second Amendment guaranteeing gun ownership as an individual, as opposed to, collective right. And I was only pointing out the irony of having those who see it as an absolute right to individual ownership turning a blind eye to the issue when the individual gun owner is the son of a Democratic president.
The issue was banning guns for drug users. I'm pointing out alcohol is the drug that causes the most bad behavior from being under it's influence.

I'm actually arguing the opposite--drug use no more makes one unqualified to have a gun as alcohol use. Don't touch your gun while you're under the influence, whether it be alcohol or harder stuff.

The issue with drugs and guns is far more knee-jerk than actually justified by the situation. You're impaired, you shouldn't have a gun at that time. Doesn't matter what's impairing you. Impairment need not be permanent. In the end my father certainly was in a sense addicted, but because it was legal stuff from the oncologist it wouldn't matter in the eyes of the law. Heroin is basically just two morphine molecules stuck together and is rapidly metabolized to morphine--why is it treated differently if it comes from the doctor or the street?

I don't think that all addictive drugs can be practically regulated in the same way, but the government certainly ought to be able to deprive individuals from owning guns if they are seen to pose a risk to public safety. Right now, the debate in the US is over whether the government even has the right to do that. I don't see the Second Amendment as depriving the government of the right to do that, but many, if not most Americans, do. It's just plain nuts, especially given the specific wording of the amendment. And the Supreme Court majority right now seems to be among the nuts wanting to use the Second Amendment towards that end.
And the drug that poses the greatest risk to public safety is alcohol.
 
...
Those may not be the same thing, but I don't think there is any good way to test the theory. In any case, the Second Amendment has only been treated as an individual, rather than collective right, since the 5-4 Heller ruling. The majority now would be larger, for obvious reasons. It's just ironic that Hunter Biden might join with the second amendment fundamentalists in his defense at the same time that second amendment fundamentalists are loudly saying nothing in his defense.
Then ban guns for anyone who consumes alcohol. It's the one that's most dangerous for having a gun.

Who said anything about banning guns? Why do these discussions always go to gun bans, which is not even relevant to my post? The point I made was about the Second Amendment guaranteeing gun ownership as an individual, as opposed to, collective right. And I was only pointing out the irony of having those who see it as an absolute right to individual ownership turning a blind eye to the issue when the individual gun owner is the son of a Democratic president.
The issue was banning guns for drug users. I'm pointing out alcohol is the drug that causes the most bad behavior from being under it's influence.

I'm actually arguing the opposite--drug use no more makes one unqualified to have a gun as alcohol use. Don't touch your gun while you're under the influence, whether it be alcohol or harder stuff.


First of all, there are vastly more users of alcohol than prohibited drugs for the simple reason that alcohol is not a prohibited drug. Hence, if alcohol use is a more common cause of bad behavior, that is because alcohol use is more common than other kinds of drug use. But, getting back to my point, which you responded to, I did not raise the issue of banning guns. You did. Moreover, your entire argument is a whataboutism. I think I've made my point, and I'll leave it at that.
 
...
Those may not be the same thing, but I don't think there is any good way to test the theory. In any case, the Second Amendment has only been treated as an individual, rather than collective right, since the 5-4 Heller ruling. The majority now would be larger, for obvious reasons. It's just ironic that Hunter Biden might join with the second amendment fundamentalists in his defense at the same time that second amendment fundamentalists are loudly saying nothing in his defense.
Then ban guns for anyone who consumes alcohol. It's the one that's most dangerous for having a gun.

Who said anything about banning guns? Why do these discussions always go to gun bans, which is not even relevant to my post? The point I made was about the Second Amendment guaranteeing gun ownership as an individual, as opposed to, collective right. And I was only pointing out the irony of having those who see it as an absolute right to individual ownership turning a blind eye to the issue when the individual gun owner is the son of a Democratic president.
The issue was banning guns for drug users. I'm pointing out alcohol is the drug that causes the most bad behavior from being under it's influence.

I'm actually arguing the opposite--drug use no more makes one unqualified to have a gun as alcohol use. Don't touch your gun while you're under the influence, whether it be alcohol or harder stuff.


First of all, there are vastly more users of alcohol than prohibited drugs for the simple reason that alcohol is not a prohibited drug. Hence, if alcohol use is a more common cause of bad behavior, that is because alcohol use is more common than other kinds of drug use. But, getting back to my point, which you responded to, I did not raise the issue of banning guns. You did. Moreover, your entire argument is a whataboutism. I think I've made my point, and I'll leave it at that.
The issue was banning guns for drug users--and my point is that the same reasoning applies even more so to alcohol.
 
Hunter Biden has filed a civil suit against Rudy Giuliani, a number of shell companies through which Giuliani does business, and Giuliani’s attorney Robert Costello. The suit charges Giuliani and Costello with violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, specifically accessing Hunter Biden’s personal information “without authorization or exceeding authorized access,” resulting in the “total annihilation” of his digital privacy.
Additionally, the suit reminds the court—and everyone else—that for all the talk of “Hunter Biden’s laptop,” there is no laptop. There never was. Instead, “Defendants themselves admit that their purported possession of a ‘laptop’ is in fact not a ‘laptop’ at all. It is, according to their own public statements, an ‘external drive’ that Defendants were told contained hundreds of gigabytes of Plaintiff’s personal data.”
According to Giuliani, the data on that drive came from John Paul Mac Isaac, the former owner of a computer repair shop, who claimed to have data taken from one of Hunter Biden’s laptops and who offered to send it to Giuliani. According to the lawsuit, neither Isaac nor Giuliani ever maintained any kind of chain of custody on this data, and the data they have has been not just accessed but also tampered with, manipulated, altered, and damaged.

OH RuuuUUdeeee... Just take your ass to court
 
Hunter Biden has filed a civil suit against Rudy Giuliani, a number of shell companies through which Giuliani does business, and Giuliani’s attorney Robert Costello. The suit charges Giuliani and Costello with violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, specifically accessing Hunter Biden’s personal information “without authorization or exceeding authorized access,” resulting in the “total annihilation” of his digital privacy.
Additionally, the suit reminds the court—and everyone else—that for all the talk of “Hunter Biden’s laptop,” there is no laptop. There never was. Instead, “Defendants themselves admit that their purported possession of a ‘laptop’ is in fact not a ‘laptop’ at all. It is, according to their own public statements, an ‘external drive’ that Defendants were told contained hundreds of gigabytes of Plaintiff’s personal data.”
According to Giuliani, the data on that drive came from John Paul Mac Isaac, the former owner of a computer repair shop, who claimed to have data taken from one of Hunter Biden’s laptops and who offered to send it to Giuliani. According to the lawsuit, neither Isaac nor Giuliani ever maintained any kind of chain of custody on this data, and the data they have has been not just accessed but also tampered with, manipulated, altered, and damaged.

OH RuuuUUdeeee... Just take your ass to court
And how about going nuclear on Faux and idiots who kept repeating the "laptop" bit knowing it not to be true?
 
Is coke fiend Hunter suing someone for hacking a computer that doesn't belong to him?
 
Is coke fiend Hunter suing someone for hacking a computer that doesn't belong to him?
Yes, it is my understanding is he is suing people for hacking into his Cloud server based account (which would be a computer he doesn't own).

The person that hacked into Palin's email got a one year sentence.
 
Is coke fiend Hunter suing someone for hacking a computer that doesn't belong to him?
The QOP has admitted that what they have is a hard drive image, not a laptop. Yapping about a laptop is false.

(Besides, the image has clearly been modified, although they haven't admitted that part of it.)
 
The know, considering how long TSwizzle has been going on about this non-story, you'd think he'd be more knowledgeable in regards to it.
 
Maxwell Frost Gives Witness the Vapors With Scathing Takedown
Republicans on the committee called three witness to testify: Fox News contributor and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley; Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eileen O’Connor; and Bruce Dubinsky, a forensic account. Notably, none of these witnesses were fact witnesses, but rather experts in their respective fields. Nevertheless, the GOP’s witnesses – especially Turley – seemed skeptical about the evidence presented so far.

“This fake impeachment is based on desperate political calculation, not any evidence,” Frost declared. “And Mr. Chairman, you say this hearing is to establish the basis for this fake sham impeachment hearing, but these witnesses are not giving us any basis or giving us any evidence.”

Comer interrupted but Frost reclaimed his time.

“These witnesses are not giving any answers,” Frost continued. “They’re just asking more questions. We have one witness who has a lot of questions – Ms. O’Connor –, Dubinsky – one witness who knows something about accounting but has no real involvement in what’s going on –, and Mr. Turley’s stopping here on his way to his next Fox News hit.”

As he spoke O’Connor could be seen on camera with her jaw agape, as if to be in disbelief at Frost’s dismissive remarks.

“This is not a serious inquiry,” he went on. “Impeachment is something that’s very serious and we have to ensure we focus on the wants and needs of the American people. This is all for nothing.”

After the hearing concluded, Frost made the image of a shocked O’Connor the background photo on his X/Twitter account.
 
AOC Busts GOP Fabricating Hunter Biden Impeachment Evidence
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) busted Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) cold “fabricating” Hunter Biden evidence at the first impeachment inquiry hearing against President Joe Biden.

...
For example, Rep. Donalds introduced a text message as he questioned witnesses and claimed it had to do with Hunter Biden’s “business dealings.”
Rep. BD:
Hunter Biden was in a bad way, by the way. He was he was really strung out. He lost a bunch of money. He needed help.

Jim Biden says “this can work. You need a safe harbor. I can work with your father alone. It’ll probably take several months,” and everybody can read the text.
Rep. AOC:
But not long after that, AOC took a minute to fill in the context of the actual text exchange, and accuse Donalds of using a “fabricated image” that omitted crucial context: ...

In the actual text exchange, Hunter Biden complains he has no money to pay personal expenses, and talks about arranging work “at Penn” and moving nearer to James Biden. He complains his parents won’t foot his alimony payments. That’s the message James Biden was responding to in the mock-up Donalds presented.
 
AOC Goes Off On Republicans During Impeachment Inquiry Hearing Into President Biden - YouTube

She did a good job of questioning the hearing's witnesses, asking if they had any first-hand accounts of crimes allegedly committed by President Biden. She then continued with that "fabricated" Hunter Biden quote, and after asking again about who has evidence of alleged Joe Biden crimes, she stated that "we are wasting our time".

Was there a House floor vote about impeaching Bill Clinton? Yes. Donald Trump? Yes. Joe Biden? No.

She was later interviewed by Chris Hayes of MSNBC. She described the research that Oversight Committee Democrats' staffers did on the documents that the Republicans revealed. One of the documents did not look quite right, yet it did look vaguely familiar. That one was the "fabricated image". She then continued that we ought to investigate the investigation for ethics violations, and she said that the R's looked embarrassed, including BD himself. Then mentioning some R's leaving the hearing room.

She then got into an issue of the shutdown: Federal workers will get back pay when the gov't restarts, but not contract workers like Congress's cafeteria workers.
 
Nancy Mace Lays Into 'Actress' AOC For Tearing Apart Biden Impeachment Inquiry - the projection NM did would get her a job at a movie theater.

Greg Casar Asks GOP To Raise Their Hands If They Think Hunter And Trump Should Be Held Accountable - YouTube
He started out by quoting Oversight Committee head James Comer from 2019 wanting real work, not political-theater impeachments.

When he asked about holding Hunter and Trump accountable, all the D's raised their hands, but none of the R's.

'Let Me Give Y'all A Little Tea...': Jasmine Crockett Goes Off On GOP Over Impeachment Inquiry - YouTube
She described Donald Trump's dealings with Communist China and praise of leader Xi Jinping. Then noted that the witnesses did not exactly have evidence of wrongdoing, and she showed a picture of Trump document boxes in the "shitter" - a Mar-a-Lago bathroom. She then listed the indictments of Donald Trump. Then saying that the only thing that Joe Biden is guilty of is loving Hunter unconditionally, and that she hopes and prays that her parents would love her at least half as much.

JUST IN: James Comer Clashes With Summer Lee During Impeachment Inquiry Hearing - YouTube
SL claimed that the Republicans were trying to divert attention with their Biden impeachment hearings. She then listed how many constituents will have to go without pay in the districts of shutdown supporters. As she got to MTG's district, MTG herself stated that the "Democrat Party" is the party of shutdowns. SL noted some 200 thousand total, all ordinary people.

She also recommended this test: exchange the political parties and see what it looks like then.

Melanie Stansbury Blasts GOP, Claiming They Are Taking Orders From Trump To Impeach Biden - YouTube
She thanked Donald Trump for calling this hearing, even if vicariously. She also noted that most Republican members of the Oversight Committee bothered to show up for the hearing. She then pointed out where Trump had called for that hearing, and the camera panned back to show AOC smiling. MS then said that this is not a "serious" hearing.

JUST IN: Hearing Breaks Down After Jamie Raskin Accuses GOP Of Not Authorizing Impeachment Inquiry - YouTube
 
MeidasTouch on X: "More people need to be talking about the fact that the Republicans were caught by AOC presenting fabricated evidence during their sham impeachment hearing. (vid link)" / X
then
Simon Rosenberg on X: "I agree with this - the GOP manufactured false evidence and showed it in Congress on Thursday. Crude Russian disinfo tactics. Shocking stuff from American elected officials.
Remember that you only make stuff up when you have nothing. (link)" / X


“In the Shitter”: Democratic Rep. Reads Out Entire List of Trump Crimes
“When we start talking about things that look like evidence, they wanna act like they blind. They don’t know what this is,” she said, holding up photos from the indictment against Trump for hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. “These are our national secrets, looks like in the shitter to me.”

“When we’re talking about somebody that’s committed high crimes, it’s at least indictments. Let’s say 32 counts related to unauthorized retention of national security secrets,” Crockett said, proceeding to list out all the things Trump has been indicted for.

“I will tell you what the president has been guilty of,” she thundered. “He has unfortunately been guilty of loving his child unconditionally.”

“Until [Republicans] find some evidence, we need to get back to the people’s work, which means keeping this government open!”
She also mentioned Donald Trump's business dealings with China, something that Republicans claim that Hunter Biden is guilty of, and “repeating the same lies will not somehow turn them into truths.”
 

This "fabricated evidence" charge is so overblown. Donalds displayed part of the text of an actual text message. Donalds just didn't include the full context of the quote, which was misleading, but it wasn't "fabrication." Donalds did display the quote in a text bubble image they created, but everyone does that. The Dems do that too in these kind of hearings, to make it more readable. Nobody said it was a screencap from a phone.

The main problem with Donalds quoted text is that it doesn't prove anything against Joe Biden or anyone really even with how it was clipped. And it was from 2018!
 
Back
Top Bottom