Het grote Joe Biden topic #MAGA #1

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 20:56 schreef Belabor het volgende:

[..]

Het woord collusion staat waar precies?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019)#/media/File%3AAppointment_of_Special_Counsel_to_Investigate_Russian_Interference_with_the_2016_Presidential_Election_and_Related_Matters.pdf

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 20:59 schreef Belabor het volgende:
Het is goed met jullie. Ik ga niet weer het verschil tussen obstruction of justice en collusion uitleggen aan mensen die het niet willen begrijpen.

Fijne avond.

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 20:59 schreef Belabor het volgende:
Het is goed met jullie. Ik ga niet weer het verschil tussen obstruction of justice en collusion uitleggen aan mensen die het niet willen begrijpen.

Fijne avond.

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 21:03 schreef dellipder het volgende:

[..]

Ja graag. Ga maar weg!!!

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 21:00 schreef SnertMetChoco het volgende:

[..]

Collusion is geen juridische term in die context. Dus de opdracht kan in lekentaal gegeven zijn, maar de beantwoorde vraag, voor zover beantwoord is duidelijk een andere.

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 21:06 schreef Belabor het volgende:

[..]

Zie het woord.

Not.

In dit document.

En nu ga ik echt

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 21:33 schreef SnertMetChoco het volgende:

[..]

Hij deed onderzoek naar conspiracy, wat in de wet staat. Iedereen bedoelt wat anders met collusion.

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 20:22 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
[ twitter ]

Zeg het maar, lijkt mij wel een onderzoekje waard niet?

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 21:33 schreef SnertMetChoco het volgende:

[..]

Hij deed onderzoek naar conspiracy, wat in de wet staat. Iedereen bedoelt wat anders met collusion. Wat bedoel jij met collusion? Hoe typeer je het overhandigen van pollingdata aan een russische spion door de campagne?

Zoals het artikel waar ik je boven een linkje van heb gegeven stelt wat het rapport van de Senaat zegt:
[..]

Gecombineerd met:
[..]

Hoe typeer jij dat? Zou jij dat samenwerken noemen? Samenzweren? Het zoeken van samenwerken? Überhaupt wel laakbaar?

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 23:21 schreef SnertMetChoco het volgende:

[..]

Ik snap niet wat je nou probeert te zeggen. In juridische zin kon Mueller conspiracy niet aantonen, daar kunnen we het over eens zijn. Dat "collusion" genoemd is in het scope document ook. Dat een woord gebruikt wordt wil niet betekenen dat anderen dat woord ook met die betekenis gebruikt hebben natuurlijk. Mueller interpreteerde dat vrij duidelijk, als openbaar aanklager, als conspiracy.

Een mooi voorbeeld hierover is ook "nepnieuws". Niet om nou in de hele geschiedenis te duiken, maar Trump bedoelt met nepnieuws het nieuws wat niet vlijend over hem is of wat hij als vijandelijk ziet, waar anderen het over letterlijke onwaarheid hebben, waar het ook mee begon.

Stone is niet veroordeeld voor conspiracy. Waarom zou dit relevant zijn? Ik had al gesteld dat de juridische conspiracy geen collusion is in het dagelijks taalgebruik, zoals jij zelf ook in jouw reactie stelt.

Hoe typeer jij dat:
- de Trump campagne polling data gaf aan een Russische spion?
- de Trump campagne wilde weten wanneer welke informatie over de gehackte emails vrij kwam, hiervoor moeite deed, dit kreeg en er hun strategie op aanpaste?

Zou jij dat bijvoorbeeld samenwerken noemen? Samenzweren? Heimelijk samenwerken? Het zoeken van samenwerken? Vind je het überhaupt wel laakbaar?

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 23:21 schreef SnertMetChoco het volgende:

[..]

Ik snap niet wat je nou probeert te zeggen.

quote:

In juridische zin kon Mueller conspiracy niet aantonen, daar kunnen we het over eens zijn. Dat "collusion" genoemd is in het scope document ook. Dat een woord gebruikt wordt wil niet betekenen dat anderen dat woord ook met die betekenis gebruikt hebben natuurlijk. Mueller interpreteerde dat vrij duidelijk, als openbaar aanklager, als conspiracy.

quote:

Een mooi voorbeeld hierover is ook "nepnieuws". Niet om nou in de hele geschiedenis te duiken, maar Trump bedoelt met nepnieuws het nieuws wat niet vlijend over hem is of wat hij als vijandelijk ziet, waar anderen het over letterlijke onwaarheid hebben, waar het ook mee begon.

quote:

Stone is niet veroordeeld voor conspiracy. Waarom zou dit relevant zijn? Ik had al gesteld dat de juridische conspiracy geen collusion is in het dagelijks taalgebruik, zoals jij zelf ook in jouw reactie stelt.

quote:

Hoe typeer jij dat:
- de Trump campagne polling data gaf aan een Russische spion?
- de Trump campagne wilde weten wanneer welke informatie over de gehackte emails vrij kwam, hiervoor moeite deed, dit kreeg en er hun strategie op aanpaste?

quote:

Zou jij dat bijvoorbeeld samenwerken noemen? Samenzweren? Heimelijk samenwerken? Het zoeken van samenwerken? Vind je het überhaupt wel laakbaar?

quote:

Op woensdag 14 oktober 2020 23:42 schreef SnertMetChoco het volgende:

[..]

Ik kan me voorstellen dat het moeilijk is voor mensen die er zo stevig in zitten om dan ineens een draai te maken.

Dellipder probeerde het door te doen alsof anderen gedraaid zijn en er revisionisme plaatsvond. Dat is een uitweg natuurlijk om het niet over de inhoud te moeten hebben, maar vanuit mijn perspectief bezijden de waarheid. Niet zinvol verder om daar specifiek over in discussie te treden en dit topic is hier ook niet het topic voor lijkt me. De vragen staan ook nog wel open voor hem natuurlijk als hij dat wil beantwoorden, want dit was wel een tikkeltje zwak.

quote:

Notice Biden campaign not denying Post’s scoop facts on Hunter Biden’s sleaze

Notice that Joe Biden and his campaign aren’t disputing the basic facts The Post has uncovered about Hunter Biden’s cashing in on his dad’s high office.

The ex-veep called “a lid” for the day at 9:41 a.m. Wednesday, indicating he’d make no more appearances. So reporters couldn’t push him about his past claims that he’d “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” now that data from an old hard drive suggest that’s not so.

E-mails reveal that Hunter introduced a top executive of Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas firm on whose board he sat, to his dad while Joe was in the White House — and less than a year before the veep pushed the Ukrainian government into firing a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

Vadym Pozharskyi, a top Burisma adviser, e-mailed Hunter in May 2014 asking for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf. Then he e-mailed a note of gratitude on April 17, 2015, a year after Hunter had been brought on with a salary reported to be $50,000 a month: “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure.”

Hunter didn’t resign from Burisma’s board until April 2019, the same month his dad announced his run for president.

The Biden campaign didn’t respond to The Post’s five pre-publication requests for comment nor ever deny the e-mails’ veracity. It won’t even say Joe never met with Pozharskyi — but only that no such meeting shows on his “official schedules.”

Nor did Hunter dispute The Post’s reporting. His lawyer George Mesires refused comment, except to slam Rudy Giuliani, who gave us a copy of the hard drive Sunday.

A Delaware computer shop owner told The Post the laptop was brought in for repair in April 2019 but never picked up. He turned it over to the FBI, while giving a copy of the drive to Giuliani’s lawyer.

When a Democratic voter in December suggested Burisma hired Hunter purely for access to his dad, Joe called the guy “fat” and challenged him to a push-up contest. And that’s not remotely the only time Joe has grown angry at questions about Hunter’s profiteering. Now we have an idea why.

quote:

If ‘unreliable’ is the issue, why did social media never block anti-Trump stories?

This is what totalitarianism looks like in our century: not men in darkened cells driving screws under the fingernails of dissidents, but Silicon Valley dweebs removing from vast swaths of the Internet a damaging exposé on their preferred presidential candidate.

That’s what Facebook and Twitter did to the New York Post’s bombshell report on Hunter Biden, revealing why the illustrious vice-presidential son was hired by a shady Ukrainian energy firm in exchange for at least $50,000 a month.

According to e-mails obtained by The Post, Hunter introduced the firm’s executives to his father — just when Joe Biden was the second-most powerful man on earth, with outsize influence over the fate of the embattled Eastern European country.

That information is squarely in the public interest as we head into an election, right? Yes, but it’s also extremely embarrassing for President Trump’s opponent, and so social-media executives went into action.


Andy Stone, a member of Facebook’s p.r. team, said, “We are reducing [the Post story’s] distribution on our platform.” Before joining the social-media giant, Stone worked for Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, yet he insisted that Facebook’s action was “part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation.” Right.

Then, Twitter began blocking users from posting the story, with a spokesman telling a Washington Examiner scribe that the move was prompted by “the lack of authoritative reporting on the origins of the materials included” in the report.

Misinformation? Lack of authoritative reporting? The story explained exactly The Post got the material, and the supporting evidence. Yet the past four years have seen left-of-center outlets devote millions of column inches to anti-Trump stories that turned out to be utter bunk — yet neither Facebook nor Twitter took similar action as part of any “standard process”:

Remember when four CNN reporters claimed, in June 2017, that James Comey was about to dispute in congressional testimony Trump’s claim that the FBI director had reassured the president he wasn’t under investigation? Comey did no such thing, but did Twitter and Facebook censor the story? Nope.
 
Or recall when The Guardian newspaper concocted a story, seemingly out of thin air, about Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange meeting at Ecuador’s embassy in London? There was no such meeting, as the special counsel’s report confirmed. So did Facebook or Twitter block that story? Nope, you can still post the debunked nonsense on either platform.
 
Or remember when The Atlantic published a several-thousand-word story suggesting that then-Sen. Jeff Sessions had lied when he said he didn’t meet the Russian ambassador as a Team Trump surrogate, but as a routine matter? The Mueller report debunked The Atlantic decisively with its finding that the meeting in question didn’t “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.” So is The Atlantic story blocked as misinformation? Nope.
 
Or how about when the McClatchy news agency claimed that Trump attorney Michael Cohen had secretly traveled to Prague to meet with his Kremlin handlers? “Cohen had never traveled to Prague,” the Mueller report found. So is the McClatchy report blocked? You know the answer — of course it isn’t.
 

Then there was BuzzFeed’s big bombshell that fizzled: a major story claiming that Trump had ordered Cohen to lie to Congress. The Mueller report’s verdict: “The president did not direct [Cohen] to provide false testimony. Cohen also said he did not tell the president about his planned testimony.” Did Facebook and Twitter block the link or otherwise “reduce distribution” pending fact-checking? Of course not. You can still post the lies freely.

Then there was the biggest of whopper of all: the salacious — and utterly discredited — Steele dossier, first reported by David Corn of Mother Jones and later published by BuzzFeed. Blocked by Big Tech? Ha!

The Post will continue to chase the truth wherever it takes us. But this episode should alarm ­every American. A very few people can unaccountably shape what you read.

This is how freedom dies.

quote:

Hunter Biden emails under investigation by Senate Homeland Security Committee after hard drive report emerges

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is investigating newly released emails that reveal that Hunter Biden introduced his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings in 2015 at Hunter's request.

Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Fox News on Wednesday that the committee has been in touch with the person who provided the emails and was in the process of validating the information.

The emails in question were obtained by the New York Post and revealed that Biden’s son introduced the then-vice president to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings less than a year before he pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the company.

"We regularly speak with individuals who email the committee’s whistleblower account to determine whether we can validate their claims," Johnson told Fox News. "Although we consider those communications to be confidential, because the individual in this instance spoke with the media about his contact with the committee, we can confirm receipt of his email complaint, have been in contact with the whistleblower, and are in the process of validating the information he provided.”

The Post report revealed that Biden, at Hunter’s request, met with Vadym Pozharskyi in April 2015 in Washington, D.C.

The meeting was mentioned in an email of appreciation, according to the Post, that Pozharskyi sent to Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015 — a year after Hunter took on his lucrative position on the board of Burisma.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email read.

An earlier email from May 2014 also showed Pozharskyi, reportedly a top Burisma executive, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf, the Post reported.

The meeting took place less than a year before the former vice president purportedly pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin.

...

Johnson's committee has been investigating Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings since 2019, and last month released an interim report on their monthslong probe into Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Burisma and his alleged “extensive and complex financial transactions.”

Johnson and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said their investigation has “faced many obstacles” from Democrats on their committees and that executive agencies “failed to comply with document requests.”

The chairmen added that “there remains much work to be done” in their probe. Hunter Biden is the son of the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. His work background played a starring role in the Trump impeachment efforts earlier this year. He and his father have denied any wrongdoing related to his work.

The 87-page report stated that Obama administration officials “knew” that Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma was “problematic” and that it interfered “in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine.”

“This investigation has illustrated the extent to which officials within the Obama administration ignored the glaring warning signs when the vice president’s son joined the board of a company owned by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch,” the report’s executive summary stated.

...

quote:

Op donderdag 15 oktober 2020 04:05 schreef Sjemmert het volgende:

[..]

https://nypost.com/2020/1(...)-anti-trump-stories/