Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I never claimed it was a lie. I did question the chain of custody of the laptop. Richard, I hate to be the one to break it to you again, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then, and a broken clock is right twice a day. If the NYPost is right once in a while, it does nothing to erase their overall deplorable record with journalistic standards and truth-telling. Additionally, regardless of what you think about me, your record for posting outrageous right-wing nut-jobbery here is legendary, and you have zero credibility when it comes to judging other people's sources because yours are the worst of the worst.

Davis is, as usual, deflecting here by his customary technique of what about this shiny object in the room?

The chain of custody issue in this whole laptop business is the elephant in the room and the history of it, from Rudy Giuliani's involvement with it down the line is well documented.

That said, "Former U.S. spies warned in 2020 that the Hunter Biden scandal had Russian fingerprints. They feel vindicated now."  "Derogatory information, purportedly from Hunter Biden’s laptop, had surfaced in a New York Post article. Soon afterward, 51 former intelligence officials signed and blasted to the media a letter warning that the laptop story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

"The letter continued: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails … are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/former-us-spies-warned-2020-hunter-biden-scandal-russian-fingerprints-rcna140240

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I see that you are still as stupid as ever and a complete and utter fool for the ages.

So you are the smart one who believes this appropriate "chain of custody"?:

"Rudy Giuliani provided the materials to the New York Post after they were allegedly found on a water-damaged[50] MacBook Pro left at The Mac Shop, a Wilmington, Delaware, computer repair business owned by John Paul Mac Isaac.[51] Mac Isaac obtained the laptop in April 2019, claiming it had been dropped off by a man who identified himself as Hunter Biden and requested that the data on the damaged laptop be recovered.[1][52][53] Mac Isaac also said that he is legally blind and could not be sure if the person who supposedly left the laptop was actually Hunter Biden.[1]"

"Mac Isaac contacted Giuliani, who he said was his "lifeguard"—voicing credence to the conspiracy theory that the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign was behind the murder of campaign worker Seth Rich.[54] Steve Bannon informed the New York Post of the laptop,[55] and he and Giuliani delivered a copy of the supposed laptop hard drive to the publication.[56] Weeks before, Bannon had boasted on Dutch television that he had Hunter Biden's hard drive.[56]"

"PolitiFact wrote in June 2021: "Over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden", concluding that the laptop "was real in the sense that it exists, but it didn't prove much", as "Nothing from the laptop has revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden as vice president with regard to his son's tenure as a director for Burisma".[26] PolitiFact states that it is possible that "copies of a laptop" were obtained, instead of the actual laptop.[26] PolitiFact states that the Daily Mail published nude photos of Hunter Biden from the laptop, as well as other content focused on Hunter Biden's drug use and legal issues, but notes that Hunter Biden had already publicized his drug issues.[26]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy

What's your source, Rich, The Townhall TipSheet?

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Tony Bobulinski.

This Tony?:


"Former Hunter Biden business
associate Tony Bobulinski has provided
testimony riddled with inconsistencies,
including statements that contradict
claims in the FBI’s write-up of their
interview with him just ahead of the
2020 election."

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117001/documents/HHRG-118-GO00-20240320-SD009.pdf

"Bobulinski's lawyer's fees have been paid for by a Trump Super PAC as recently as January. What was actually said at the hearing was that the law firm representing Mr. Bobulinski was paid by a Trump PAC.Nov 25, 2024"

Originally Posted by James Lacey

As I've said before, the upper echelon of our federal leaders is a bunch of untouchable elites. We hold privates in the Air Force to a higher standard when it comes to handling classified information, for example, than we ever held Hillary, Trump, Biden, Vance, Sandy Berger, and so on.

I agree that the chain of custody is moot, mainly since no one will ever be investigated or prosecuted over Burisma-gate or Hunter's laptop. Still,  I think it's an overstatement to say that *all* of the data is authentic. As far as I know, a particular subset of the data could have been tampered with, despite a copy of some clean data from the laptop being authenticated. In short, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the data is authentic, but still, some data could never be fully authenticated. Does it matter? Not a bit at this point.

Huh?! I don't get how either you or Jim seemingly overlook THIS:

"Former FBI informant pleads guilty to lying about phony bribery scheme involving the Bidens"

" A former FBI informant pleaded guilty on Monday to lying about a phony bribery scheme involving President Joe Biden and his son Hunter that became central to the Republican impeachment inquiry in Congress."

"Alexander Smirnov entered his plea to a felony charge in connection with the bogus story"

"No evidence has emerged that Joe Biden acted corruptly or accepted bribes as president or in his previous office as vice president."

https://apnews.com/article/alexander-smirnov-guilty-plea-biden-informant-fbi-62a3b7acce0345303f812ca6d0206b10

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I was only addressing how much of the data on Hunter's laptop was 100% authentic, and while we know almost all of it is, there is still a good chance some of it is not. Does it matter anymore? Nope.

"Does it matter anymore?"

Heck yeah it matters, just ask Rich Davis, his sources, Trump and just about any MAGA on the street--it's their go to comeback for anything, second only to Hillary's emails...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Yes, but Clinton's inner circle knew the whole story was a lie, and they found compliant accomplices after the fact in the press and the agencies.

I didn't see Clinton's campaign manager activerly colluding with a known Russian spy like Trump's manager did while providing him with campaign data, too...

"The U.S. intelligence community has developed new information about Konstantin Kilimnik, whom they call a Russian spy, that leads them to believe the associate of ex-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort passed internal Trump campaign polling and strategy information to Russian intelligence services, two U.S. officials say."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-has-new-intel-manafort-friend-kilimnik-gave-trump-n1264371

Originally Posted by James Brown

Show me where Kilimnik actually affected the outcome of the election.   He did not.  Show me where the dossier is based in fact, it is not.  Read the Mueller report please.

Here, educate yourself:

https://www.newsweek.com/what-exactly-does-steele-dirty-russian-pee-tape-dossier-trump-contain-660327

Noteworthy from the above link:

"I assign more credence to the Steele report knowing that the FBI paid him for his research. From my experience, there is nobody more miserly than the FBI. If they were willing to pay Mr. Steele, they must have seen something of real value.":

"As outsiders without the investigative tools available to the FBI, we can only look at the information and determine if it makes sense given subsequent events and the revelation of additional information."

"Mr. Steele did not have the benefit of knowing Mr. Trump would win the election or how events might play out. In this regard, does any of the information we have learned since June 2016 assign greater or less credibility to the information?"

"Were the people mentioned in the report real? Were their affiliations correct? Did any of the activities reported happen as predicted?"

"To a large extent, yes."

Originally Posted by James Brown

By the way, your original source "Just Security" is biased.  I can find tons of right wing sources that completely discredit the dossier.  Instead, I'll rely on the Mueller Report.  As detailed in the Report, Trump surrounded himself with unsavory characters who in many instances broke the law.  This does not change the conclusion of no collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

The Mueller report couldn't find enough, in their estimation, to pursue a criminal case against Trump. It did NOT exonerate him...

"This much is clear: What the American people have heard about the Mueller report to
date from President Trump and members of his administration is largely spin, deliberate
distortions, or outright lies."

"Contrary to the administration's claims, the Russians interfered with our elections — and
Donald Trump, his family, and many of his campaign staff welcomed that interference.
Furthermore, many Americans would be shocked to learn that — far from exonerating the
president and his 2016 campaign — Special Counsel Robert Mueller found 10 potential
episodes of obstruction of justice by Trump. In addition, the investigation has already led to
199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences."

https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/CC_Mueller-Report_Executive-Summaries-Vol-1-and-2_6.19.19.pdf

PS: Sorry for channeling the dick but I'm really just being pissed at Trump....

Originally Posted by James Brown

I would argue that birthright citizenship absolutely, definitively, qualifies as settled law. 

Even so, the Supreme Court can grant Cert to clarify, or sometimes overturn previously settled law.   Brown v. Bd. of Education overturning the "separate but equal" settled law of that time, or Dobbs overturning the "settled law" of a right to privacy for example.

I personally think it is extremely unlikely the Supreme Court overturns the settled pre-Trump view of birthright citizenship.  This law review article goes into the debate surrounding the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and I am convinced that the Amendment was intended to cover the children of aliens born here, along with freed slaves.  https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2021/01/Ramsey_Originalism-and-Birthright-Citizenship.pdf

I also think the arguments that the kids of illegal aliens are not citizens, based upon the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the 14th Amendment are really thin.   It will be an interesting case to follow with potentially huge impact.

"I would argue that birthright citizenship absolutely, definitively, qualifies as settled law."

Precisely, and it's high time for the high court to stop its continuing practice of undermining lower courts on Trump issues like this one while allowing him almost unlimited access every single time he comes whining to SCOTUS. The issue with playing semantics and word games such as "facilitate" vs "effectuate" has got to stop and the courts need to start enforcing the laws that Trump continually breaks. Enough already!

Originally Posted by James Brown

Civil and interesting discussion is precisely the point here!  Usually... I'll admit that mud wrestling can be fun occasionally.  

I think there are two completely separate issues that could be discussed.  The first is a legal issue, whether Trump's executive order is constitutional under the 14th Amendment.  I laid out my thoughts on this issue in my first two replies above.  I think's Trump's executive order is unconstitutional under the language and history of the 14th Amendment.  Obviously that is a debatable point.

The second issue is philosophical - should the babies of illegal aliens automatically be made citizens?  I'm not sure where I stand on that one.   There is huge benefit to the country to having a steady influx of immigrants, but I (like many people) think immigration ought to be orderly and regulated.  Even though I favor orderly regulated immigration, it is not like the babies themselves are doing anything wrong, and since we want to remain a vibrant country, we will need immigrant babies of all sorts to grow up as Americans as the birth rates of pre-existing citizens decline.   

If the birthright citizenship aspect of the 14th Amendment were to be revoked by a new Amendment, I would certainly hope that Congress and the Executive branch would craft a speedy, efficient, and widely used path for law-abiding immigrants presently in the country, or allowed into the country, to become naturalized citizens.  Something like the Dreamers Act.

"I think there are two completely separate issues that could be discussed.  The first is a legal issue, whether Trump's executive order is constitutional under the 14th Amendment.  I laid out my thoughts on this issue in my first two replies above.  I think's Trump's executive order is unconstitutional under the language and history of the 14th Amendment.  Obviously that is a debatable point."

I think you had it right the first time: the law is settled and it should not be a debatable point. 

"The second issue is philosophical - should the babies of illegal aliens automatically be made citizens?  I'm not sure where I stand on that one.  There is huge benefit to the country to having a steady influx of immigrants, but I (like many people) think immigration ought to be orderly and regulated.  Even though I favor orderly regulated immigration, it is not like the babies themselves are doing anything wrong, and since we want to remain a vibrant country, we will need immigrant babies of all sorts to grow up as Americans as the birth rates of pre-existing citizens decline."

I'm in general agreement here with the exception of what is referred to as "birth tourism" wherein expectant mothers from other countries time their births with their visitors visas and are cared-for by clinics designed for this purpose. That brings us to your next point: immigration reform.

"I would certainly hope that Congress and the Executive branch would craft a speedy, efficient, and widely used path for law-abiding immigrants presently in the country, or allowed into the country, to become naturalized citizens.  Something like the Dreamers Act."

Well, we had a shot at that with Senator Jim Langsford's bipartisan bill, only to have it shot down by Trump so he could run on the issue. As long as the GOP is in power, immigration reform is dead in the water.   That said, even with the present draconian measures in place at the southern border, crossings still average about 300 per day, even with the military being deployed. People still find a way and all the more reason for immigration reform to take place...