I’d ask what this significant stuff was, but we all know what the response to that would be. In fact, we know every line of this conversation - we’ve already had it half a dozen times.
Let it go, people. It’s actually OK to just let him stew in his juices, no need to beat your head against the wall.
It’s amazing how I try to make fun of you with a fake conversation, and you follow the exact format of that fake conversation, only with even more ridiculous and easily-debunked lies than my fake ones.
Remember that gun charge? Part of the evidence against Hunter came from his laptop:
The laptop had pictures of Hunter smoking crack and waving his handgun around. I’d say that’s significant.
The House oversight committee has cited validated evidence from the laptop many times. But I know: they are also lying liars who lie, so they don’t count right?
The notion that there’s just nothing significant on the laptop is delusional. The thing is full of evidence against Hunter Biden and maybe others. But now I’m guessing you’ll just declare that this is all completely insignificant so you can continue to call me a liar.
We can differ on the significance of the info. But differing on it does not mke one side a liar. We just disagree. Nor does stating your disagreement constitute a ‘debunking’, even if a bunch of people pile on.
Pictures of Hunter smoking crack? And here I thought that the CSI ‘enhance’ thingy was science fiction!
Chemical analysis of photographs of substances? Ain’t science wonderful!
Or even some 8x10 color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explainin’ what each one was, to be used as evidence against him.
Pictures could prove it was crack and a real handgun? Tell me which of these is the real handgun. After you pick the correct one, tell me how the picture ID’d it as crack.
Do you ever bother to read the cites you link in your feeble attempts to back up your ignorant claims? I mean, I will acknowledge this quote is from the article:
In a third filing Tuesday, prosecutors said they have provided over 1.2 million pages of documents that they intend to use in the case, as well as “additional electronic evidence from the defendant’s Apple iCloud account and a copy of data from the defendant’s laptop.”
However there is nothing in the article to support this claim you made:
Where did you get this tidbit because it isn’t mentioned in your linked article.
Correct, anything the House Oversight Committee claims is 100% bullshit until there is evidence backing it up. You haven’t provided any evidence of your claim here.
Your are the delusional one just buying the rantings of Jordan, Trump or FOX News or wherever you got this idea.
Cite? Or at least a list of the evidence?
No, we’ll keep calling you a liar because you keep repeating lies.
I’m not going to litigate the laptop evidence. The courts will do that. The fact that it has been used in multiple investigations and in a trial makes it significant. I already kmow that no matter what I say you will engage in some more sophistry, repeat that I am a liar, etc. You are tediously predictable. You should get a new schtick.
I don’t kmow exactly what the evidence is. I don’t need to. I was responding to the claim that there was ‘nothing of significance’ on the laptop. That is a ridiculous thing to say in light of its evidence being part of multiple investigations and a court case.
That seems indisputable, so instead now we are arguing about Glocks.
Of course it was. The laptop is being used as evidence in a federal case against the son of the President. That makes it significant. And evidence from it it has been repeatedlly entered into evidence in multiple congressional investigations. That also makes it significant. These cases are ongoing, and in the news almost every day. The congressional investigations may have been kicked off in part because of evidence on the laptop.
Perhaps you don’t understand the definition of significant?