Santa wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:27 pm
DOB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 7:03 pm
Santa wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:41 pm
paddyor wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:08 pm
No, the media would gladly eat this up if it wasn’t BS. Fox News has seen the content and deemed it unverifiable. Even the Bulonkski guy is a lad with an axe to grind(money) . No one is touching it because the details are sketchy. The WSJ looked at it and dunked on their own editorial section. Ditto Fox News.
The problem is, this was a rumps big play and it was BS. He’s tried to astroturf controversies before and no ones biting this time.
Wrong.
It's obvious that you're just parroting tweets from your favourite journalists and haven't actually read one or both of the article because if you had you wouldn't make such stupid claims.
What is 'debunked'?
Is it the meeting with Bobulinski? No. The news article merely says:
Mr. Bobulinski said he took part in a meeting with Hunter, Joe Biden and Joe Biden’s brother James Biden in Los Angeles in 2017 when they discussed “the Biden family business plans with the Chinese, of which [Joe Biden] was plainly familiar at least at a high level.”
A Biden campaign spokesman didn’t immediately respond to a question about the alleged meeting with Mr. Bobulinski.
No response is not debunking.
Was it Biden's asserted role? No. The article merely says:
The Biden campaign denied Joe Biden had any involvement in the venture or stood to gain by it.
...
Corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden.
Neither a denial nor a failure to find a public record of an alleged fraudulent activity is debunking either, unless you take the view that someone has no role unless it is recorded in corporate records. The whole point of journalism is to dig a little deeper than that. It's (alleged) fraudulent activity you idiot. Do you think they are going to put their name all over it?
Now none of this is to say that anything is proved one way or the other at this stage. It is merely to say that you are lazy and don't know what you're talking about. And this story warrants further investigation.
Aside from that there's not much to the news article.
On the basis of the burden of proof you're asking for here, Trump would already be in jail.
Nobody has argued that Biden's hands are squeaky clean, and I think everyone who heard about it flagged Hunter's job in Ukraine as at least a potential conflict of interest.
But Trump's activities have been flagrant. Paying hush money to prostitutes. His son actually having a documented meeting with Russian officials while working for the campaign. Going against official US intelligence policy to deny aid to Ukraine. And that's just (some of) the stuff he did while running/in office, versus Biden's alleged conversation with Tony when he was a private citizen.
"Our guy isn't as bad as Trump" isn't the best argument Biden supporters could possibly make for a candidate, but on the other side, "Our guy is Trump" is far, far worse.
Whats this about burden of proof? What are you on about?
You're presenting Bobulinski's statement to the press, and a couple of articles from known biased sources, fed to them by Giuliani, as "proof" that Biden is crooked.
I should rather have said "standard of evidence," maybe? Basically, if the information you've presented, from the sources you've outlined, is a smoking gun that proves Biden is crooked, then there is way more information, from more reputable sources, detailing more serious crimes committed by Trump and members of his campaign and administration staff, and Trump should, by the standards to which you are holding Biden, be in jail, right now, and probably should have been arrested before his inauguration.
