The reporter who broke the New York Post's bombshell story on the Hunter Biden laptop speaks out after the legacy media rejected the scandal during the 2020 election.
It has excerpts of text we are told came from an email from hunter, and they’re supposing the language used is code for Joe.
You’ve gotta have something more substantial than this, surely?
I love that the conservative position has evolved from “but her emails” to “but his emails” and you’re still no closer to proving anything but you’re still so sure.
Your reading comprehension is terrible, I’m guessing 5th or 6th grade level. I never made the claim the emails on Hunter’s laptop proved Joe was party to the corrupt deals. Litterly the 1st sentence of my original post acknowledges so.
Yes the laptop does not contain communication between Hunter and Joe discussing corrupt deals.
Maybe you and your reading comprehension. That comment was a response to your last comment, which contained an article link which did make that argument.
Next time you try to provide a source make sure you understand what it says, and call out the relevant parts lol.
Expecting you to understand that big long article was my fault I’ll move a little slower so you don’t get confused.
What exactly in my original statement are you disputing?
When you provide this I will copy the text that supports my statement for you so you don’t have to read that big scary article.
Your original comment doesn’t work until you can provide proof that “evidence” came off of Hunter’s laptop.
Is Hunter Biden authenticating the email evidence enough? Here’s a part of the transcript of his testimony.
Exhibit 16 is a subject,8
Expectations. It’s from James Gilliar to Tony Bobulinski. Rob Walker and yourself.9
Have you seen this email before?10
A I have. I’ve seen it, I think, as we all have, 8,642,300 times.11
Q Okay. And you’d expected we’d ask you about it here today, correct?12
A Of course, I did, yeah.13
Q Okay.14
A Yeah.15
Q At the bottom, so I’ll skip reading the whole email if I may. And at the16
bottom, it says, "At the moment, there’s provisional agreement that the equity will be17
distributed as follows.18
A Uh-huh.19
Q “20 to H,” which presumably is yourself. Is that correct?20
A Yes.21
Q “20, RW,” that’s Rob Walker, correct?22
A Yes.23
Q “20, James Gilliar.” Is that correct?24
A Yes.
If you’re trying to implicate Joe you need to provide evidence of that, which you’ve failed to do.
Your 5th grade reading comprehension strikes again at no point have I claimed the emails on Hunters laptop implicate Joe.
Speaking of reading comprehension, there’s no mention of Joe in that transcript, so why should I care?
For someone who likes to put other’s down for their ability to comprehend information you’ve yet to make this connection definitively.
I don’t care what Joe’s kids do any more than I care what Trump’s kids do. As long as they’re not involved in whatever it is, why should anyone give a shit? You still haven’t answered this part.
Once again your 5th grade reading skills let you down. In my original reply, I disputing that Hunters laptop only contained dick & drug picks.
My initial reply
It’s not just dick and drug pics on the laptop.
I don’t care what Joe’s kids do any more than I care what Trump’s kids do. As long as they’re not involved in whatever it is, why should anyone give a shit? You still haven’t answered this part.
https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm/
Hahahaha that article doesn’t have proof of shit.
It has excerpts of text we are told came from an email from hunter, and they’re supposing the language used is code for Joe.
You’ve gotta have something more substantial than this, surely?
I love that the conservative position has evolved from “but her emails” to “but his emails” and you’re still no closer to proving anything but you’re still so sure.
Your reading comprehension is terrible, I’m guessing 5th or 6th grade level. I never made the claim the emails on Hunter’s laptop proved Joe was party to the corrupt deals. Litterly the 1st sentence of my original post acknowledges so.
Maybe you and your reading comprehension. That comment was a response to your last comment, which contained an article link which did make that argument.
Next time you try to provide a source make sure you understand what it says, and call out the relevant parts lol.
Expecting you to understand that big long article was my fault I’ll move a little slower so you don’t get confused.
What exactly in my original statement are you disputing? When you provide this I will copy the text that supports my statement for you so you don’t have to read that big scary article.
Oh I’ve provided that already. Your original comment doesn’t work until you can provide proof that “evidence” came off of Hunter’s laptop.
Even if it has, I don’t really care because Hunter isn’t running for election, his father is.
If you’re trying to implicate Joe you need to provide evidence of that, which you’ve failed to do.
Is Hunter Biden authenticating the email evidence enough? Here’s a part of the transcript of his testimony.
Your 5th grade reading comprehension strikes again at no point have I claimed the emails on Hunters laptop implicate Joe.
Speaking of reading comprehension, there’s no mention of Joe in that transcript, so why should I care?
For someone who likes to put other’s down for their ability to comprehend information you’ve yet to make this connection definitively.
I don’t care what Joe’s kids do any more than I care what Trump’s kids do. As long as they’re not involved in whatever it is, why should anyone give a shit? You still haven’t answered this part.
Once again your 5th grade reading skills let you down. In my original reply, I disputing that Hunters laptop only contained dick & drug picks.
My initial reply
You clearly do care just based on your replies.
deleted by creator