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.
I asked first, for a source, the one you provided was shit and I already explained why.
Unless you have another, I must conclude your original statement was made without proper citation, and was therefore invalid and not even worth going further.
Because you have failed to properly establish a baseline for any point, I have no questions from you to answer.
You’re really bad about having good faith conversations online. You have to start with a source of acceptable truth. You have failed to do so and continue to double-down on putting the onus on me to argue a point you haven’t yet fully proven.
I asked first, for a source, the one you provided was shit and I already explained why.
Unless you have another, I must conclude your original statement was made without proper citation, and was therefore invalid and not even worth going further.
I did provide another source, Hunter himself who, under oath, confirmed those emails are real. You really need to take a little time to read people’s replies and understand them. It’s ok if you need to reread everything some people need extra time to understand everything.
None of what you provided, even Hunter’s transcripts, implicates Joe in anything. You have yet to directly address this, meaning there’s nothing for me to respond to.
Once again, Hunter is not relevant to anything political or conservative in any way, so there’s no point in saying anymore on him.
Maybe if I ask again slowly, you’ll get it:
Where is Joe shown to be actively a part of criminal activity via authentic data from Hunter’s laptop?
None of what you provided, even Hunter’s transcripts, implicates Joe in anything. You have yet to directly address this, meaning there’s nothing for me to respond to.
Your back to this lie, I never claimed Joe was implicated by the emails. In my very first response I said there was no evidence that he was involved. I have no idea what mental defect you posses that causes you to be unable to understand this.
Once again, Hunter is not relevant to anything political or conservative in any way, so there’s no point in saying anymore on him.
If that’s true then why do you keep responding? Why were you so triggered by me saying hunters emails had more than drug and dick picks?
“Yes the laptop does not contain communication between Hunter and Joe discussing corrupt deals. It does contain details of Hunter making corrupt deals that Hunter claims Joe was party to.”
I’m not asking you to prove this, I’m asking what the point is of even giving this story attention if Joe isn’t complicit.
Once again, you complain about my reading comprehension but seem to lack your own.
Gaslight
Obstruct
Project <- You are Here.
If that’s true then why do you keep responding?
Because I’m not going to let you shy away from a conversation that easily. You refuse to directly provide any kind of support as to why we should care about this at all, or why you believe there are “good” white supremacists to bring up that thread again, and your M.O. seems to just be to insult the other person and hyperfixate on the wrong aspect of a discussion while simultaneously being pretty fuckin rude to anyone that doesn’t give you a pass.
I simply refuse to disengage because your behavior is not conducive to good faith discussion. You are free to at any time if you’re so bothered by that.
“Yes the laptop does not contain communication between Hunter and Joe discussing corrupt deals. It does contain details of Hunter making corrupt deals that Hunter claims Joe was party to.”
Are you agreeing that I never claimed that Joe was implicated by the emails? I just want to make sure you’re not confused again.
I’m not asking you to prove this, I’m asking what the point is of even giving this story attention if Joe isn’t complicit.
I’ll answer your question with a question. Why are you giving this story attention if Joe isn’t complicit?
why you believe there are “good” white supremacists
That is an outright lie I never made that claim. You had ample opportunities to provide the quote but you never did.
your M.O. seems to just be to insult the other person and hyperfixate on the wrong aspect of a discussion while simultaneously being pretty fuckin rude to anyone that doesn’t give you a pass.
Did you ever think it might be because you make false claims about me that I’m rude to you?
Your grand response is “no you answer your questions first”??? HAHAHAHA
ok you clearly don’t actually have any desire to discuss this.
And FTR I’m not “lying” about what you’re saying. Your arguments imply the existence of certain people or events but you get really insulty anytime I ask you to provide evidence. Maybe that just means you’re wrong? Or at best, emotionally unstable.
Once again, I’ll answer you when you answer me.
I asked first, for a source, the one you provided was shit and I already explained why.
Unless you have another, I must conclude your original statement was made without proper citation, and was therefore invalid and not even worth going further.
Because you have failed to properly establish a baseline for any point, I have no questions from you to answer.
You’re really bad about having good faith conversations online. You have to start with a source of acceptable truth. You have failed to do so and continue to double-down on putting the onus on me to argue a point you haven’t yet fully proven.
Gaslight <- You are Here
Obstruct
Project
I did provide another source, Hunter himself who, under oath, confirmed those emails are real. You really need to take a little time to read people’s replies and understand them. It’s ok if you need to reread everything some people need extra time to understand everything.
HAHAHAHA you still don’t get it.
None of what you provided, even Hunter’s transcripts, implicates Joe in anything. You have yet to directly address this, meaning there’s nothing for me to respond to.
Once again, Hunter is not relevant to anything political or conservative in any way, so there’s no point in saying anymore on him.
Maybe if I ask again slowly, you’ll get it:
Where is Joe shown to be actively a part of criminal activity via authentic data from Hunter’s laptop?
Gaslight
Obstruct <- You are Here
Project
Your back to this lie, I never claimed Joe was implicated by the emails. In my very first response I said there was no evidence that he was involved. I have no idea what mental defect you posses that causes you to be unable to understand this.
If that’s true then why do you keep responding? Why were you so triggered by me saying hunters emails had more than drug and dick picks?
This you?
“Yes the laptop does not contain communication between Hunter and Joe discussing corrupt deals. It does contain details of Hunter making corrupt deals that Hunter claims Joe was party to.”
I’m not asking you to prove this, I’m asking what the point is of even giving this story attention if Joe isn’t complicit.
Once again, you complain about my reading comprehension but seem to lack your own.
Gaslight
Obstruct
Project <- You are Here.
Because I’m not going to let you shy away from a conversation that easily. You refuse to directly provide any kind of support as to why we should care about this at all, or why you believe there are “good” white supremacists to bring up that thread again, and your M.O. seems to just be to insult the other person and hyperfixate on the wrong aspect of a discussion while simultaneously being pretty fuckin rude to anyone that doesn’t give you a pass.
I simply refuse to disengage because your behavior is not conducive to good faith discussion. You are free to at any time if you’re so bothered by that.
Are you agreeing that I never claimed that Joe was implicated by the emails? I just want to make sure you’re not confused again.
I’ll answer your question with a question. Why are you giving this story attention if Joe isn’t complicit?
That is an outright lie I never made that claim. You had ample opportunities to provide the quote but you never did.
Did you ever think it might be because you make false claims about me that I’m rude to you?
Your grand response is “no you answer your questions first”??? HAHAHAHA
ok you clearly don’t actually have any desire to discuss this.
And FTR I’m not “lying” about what you’re saying. Your arguments imply the existence of certain people or events but you get really insulty anytime I ask you to provide evidence. Maybe that just means you’re wrong? Or at best, emotionally unstable.
Still cant back up your claims, and as any liar does when caught double down. Just keep trying to squirm, it doesn’t help, but it’s very entertaining.
Gaslight
Obstruct
Project <- You are Here.
Sorry bud, refusing to see the logical fault in your argument doesn’t mean the other guy is the problem.
Maybe one day you’ll construct an argument worth actually arguing? That might be hoping for too much.