NBC news story on Hunter Biden

[Markk]

False, and again you can jump in anytime instead of just continue being a outside critic with drive by remarks….the evidence is what the e-mails say. Kevin and Honor offer conjecture, like (paraphrase)‘he was just an upset father ranting with a teenage daughter’ , in other words they are ignoring what he actually wrote and stating without absolutely any evidence of their assertion. My assertion is simple and factual…Their are several texts and e-mails that imply Hunter paid bills for Joe, even from his salary.

My drive by remarks are likely slightly better than your posts. You offer conjecture and scoff at the suggestion that your sources are deliberately lacking context. They are. You scoff at other's conjectures but insist yours are the only possible correct ones. The pure truth. Your assertion is simple and may involve facts, but you ignore context. You have a few emails and texts revealed by political enemies and don't seem to understand why it might matter that we don't have access to the rest of it that might provide context that goes against your presupposed notions,

That's the point.

You came in here screaming about the obvious corruption of Joe Biden, but have no proof. You say he is corrupt and expect everyone to accept your point of view, facts be dammed. I'm no Biden fan, but this is just silly

FF…There is no shortage of folks here that want to tell me why I am this way or that way, or that I am this or that. If you want to actually get involved and show you even understand what is being discussed, please do. While always digging themselves holes, Folks like Honor and Res read and do homework, and make me think and sometime concede points.

I will make it easy on you …”I am everything you say I am, I am everything you say I am, and if you like more” So, that is now understood so now you can actually engage in the conversation and show me what you know about the subject.

So here a question for you….just to get you in the conversation…there is no doubt that Eric was paying Joes bills…we know he bounced things off of Hunter. We know both have a deep history of lobbying. Hunter was a partner in a law firm, what was the name of that law firm, and what was there specialty? This has nothing todo with Joe, or I am not making any accusation about anything in particular…I am just trying to ween you of being my personal Phycologist and actually attempting to get you in the conversation…Fair?

If you want to just tell me about my shortcomings…that is alright also…but just understand you are doing this on the porch with the other nanny’s. I am challenging you to get off the porch. Maybe I will start a new thread for me and you to discuss James Biden or Hunter and China, and you can show me you actually have even looked at what the debate is about…

[honorentheos]

Markk, can you or can you not provide a direct quote from Hunter Biden where he claims he was paying Joe's bills? I ask, knowing you can't. The "patterns" you see are no different than the apologetics that Mormons use to defend the Book of Mormon. No clean, unmanipulated or interpreted facts ever get presented. Just shotgunned pieces of unrelated "evidence" and proclamations those who can't see the truth of these "patterns" are deceived.

LOL …no just a lot circumstantial evidence he did.

Well, there you go.

[honorentheos]

...there is no doubt that Eric was paying Joes bills…we know he bounced things off of Hunter.

More accurately, the emails indicate that Eric had access to Joe's funds and was receiving Joe's bills. We don't "know" anything. We're working with the information we have from the sources available. But it does appear that Eric was managing payments for repairs to the properties Joe owned but was not living in while service as VP in 2010. And he would ask Hunter to talk to his dad about some them. Tellingly, the bills mentioned are repair bills. This isn't a sweeping catalog of monthly expenses being discussed in 2010.

We know both have a deep history of lobbying. Hunter was a partner in a law firm, what was the name of that law firm, and what was there specialty? This has nothing to do with Joe, or I am not making any accusation about anything in particular…

This is an example of assumptions you read into the narrative without fleshing out your argument. You use the word, "lobbyist" like it is akin to calling someone a Nazi or a pedophile with the word already preloaded with understanding of the vile nature of the person so accused. But being a lobbyist is not prima facia evidence of corruption or criminal activity. Saying the above isn't an argument. It should be followed with evidence of how their lobbying was actually corrupt and should be seen as criminal. That is, if you want to actual do more than posture around the thread while eating punches as you've been doing...

[canpakes]

This is an example of assumptions you read into the narrative without fleshing out your argument. You use the word, "lobbyist" like it is akin to calling someone a Nazi or a pedophile with the word already preloaded with understanding of the vile nature of the person so accused. But being a lobbyist is not prima facia evidence of corruption or criminal activity. Saying the above isn't an argument. It should be followed with evidence of how their lobbying was actually corrupt and should be seen as criminal.

For the sake of the Trump Administration, let’s hope so, given how the number of lobbyist visits to the VP’s office dramatically increased to record levels during Pence’s time in that position.

image courtesy of https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lob ... ary?id=010
.

[Markk]

LOL …no just a lot circumstantial evidence he did.

Well, there you go.

Yes, we can finally agree there is circumstantial evidence that Hunter and Eric, may have very well paid JB bills, and lending to your term…more smoke. In case there is any confusion here, just search the word circumstantial/Markk on this thread and the others.

[Markk]

This is an example of assumptions you read into the narrative without fleshing out your argument. You use the word, "lobbyist" like it is akin to calling someone a Nazi or a pedophile with the word already preloaded with understanding of the vile nature of the person so accused. But being a lobbyist is not prima facia evidence of corruption or criminal activity. Saying the above isn't an argument. It should be followed with evidence of how their lobbying was actually corrupt and should be seen as criminal.

For the sake of the Trump Administration, let’s hope so, given how the number of lobbyist visits to the VP’s office dramatically increased to record levels during Pence’s time in that position.

image courtesy of https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lob ... ary?id=010
.

Pakes that is what lobbyists do, they grease politicians pockets. The issue and to Honors point is that there is circumstantial evidence and smoke, that registered lobbyist were managing Joes money, and that one may have had power of attorney over, or at least party over, of JB’s affairs.

Remember Hunter was a partner in a lobbying firm…in fact that lends to some of the issues with Burisma and Hunter lobbying or recruiting Blue star. When and if Res gets back and starts entering this into his time line…then the pattern gets more clear.

If Pence had behind the scenes dealing with lobbists, such as one having power of attorney or paying bills for him…then that is a grave issue in my opinion…wouldn’t you agree?

[Markk]

I am cracking up at your plan here just spit it out….or I’ll just keep playing, I enjoy talking with you.

My plan is to watch you type a lot of words for another two years, while still continuing to be unable to post any evidence for your claims.

I’ve given you all kinds of evidence…whether you believe it or not is up to you…which is fair.

Don’t take offense to my asking for you to get to your latest plan…I really do enjoy talking with you…carry on.

[honorentheos]

Well, there you go.

Yes, we can finally agree there is circumstantial evidence that Hunter and Eric, may have very well paid JB bills, and lending to your term…more smoke. In case there is any confusion here, just search the word circumstantial/Markk on this thread and the others.

Evidence is a word I use to cover a broad spectrum of matters that may inform a proposition's truth value. Fact is a term I use carefully.

The facts we have in this example are that various sources have released what they claim to be emails between Eric Schwerin and Hunter Biden. That's a fact. Another fact is that a number of the funds mentioned in the claimed emails also appear on financial disclosure documents for Joe Biden from the same claimed period on online sources.

Those are statements whose truth value is justified enough I feel comfortable calling them facts.

Most other statements involved in this specific situation demand some caveat or caution. Their justification may be pretty strong, such as statements from the emails directly where saying so-and-so said this would be facts if the emails veracity were to rise to fact status. But much of what we call evidence is weak (i.e. - circumstantial). Those being statements where there are significant "If-then" conditions involved in the proposition. For example, "The money used to pay Joe's bills came from aliens from Venus buying Joe's influence in American policy" is a weak postulate with weak evidence supporting it. There is evidence Joe has bills that needed paid. The emails suggest Eric Schwerin had access to accounts used to pay some of Joe's bills related to property repairs. There's no evidence of life on Venus, though we can't rule out the potential for aliens to have escaped Venus and came here to Earth I suppose. And NASAs solar mission that launched in 2018 made investigation of Venus part of the mission which was being planned during the Obama administration. So there's circumstantial evidence for the proposition, "The money used to pay Joe's bills came from aliens from Venus buying Joe's influence in American policy", if there are aliens from Venus. If Joe Biden influenced the NASA missions agenda to include investigating Venus. If Joe received money for influencing the mission. If...

[canpakes]

My plan is to watch you type a lot of words for another two years, while still continuing to be unable to post any evidence for your claims.

I’ve given you all kinds of evidence…whether you believe it or not is up to you…which is fair.

Don’t take offense to my asking for you to get to your latest plan…I really do enjoy talking with you…carry on.

My plan is to watch you type a lot of words for another two years, while still continuing to be unable to post any evidence for your claims. : D

[Markk]

Yes, we can finally agree there is circumstantial evidence that Hunter and Eric, may have very well paid JB bills, and lending to your term…more smoke. In case there is any confusion here, just search the word circumstantial/Markk on this thread and the others.

Evidence is a word I use to cover a broad spectrum of matters that may inform a proposition's truth value. Fact is a term I use carefully.

The facts we have in this example are that various sources have released what they claim to be emails between Eric Schwerin and Hunter Biden. That's a fact. Another fact is that a number of the funds mentioned in the claimed emails also appear on financial disclosure documents for Joe Biden from the same claimed period on online sources.

Those are statements whose truth value is justified enough I feel comfortable calling them facts.

Most other statements involved in this specific situation demand some caveat or caution. Their justification may be pretty strong, such as statements from the emails directly where saying so-and-so said this would be facts if the emails veracity were to rise to fact status. But much of what we call evidence is weak (i.e. - circumstantial). Those being statements where there are significant "If-then" conditions involved in the proposition. For example, "The money used to pay Joe's bills came from aliens from Venus buying Joe's influence in American policy" is a weak postulate with weak evidence supporting it. There is evidence Joe has bills that needed paid. The emails suggest Eric Schwerin had access to accounts used to pay some of Joe's bills related to property repairs. There's no evidence of life on Venus, though we can't rule out the potential for aliens to have escaped Venus and came here to Earth I suppose. And NASAs solar mission that launched in 2018 made investigation of Venus part of the mission which was being planned during the Obama administration. So there's circumstantial evidence for the proposition, "The money used to pay Joe's bills came from aliens from Venus buying Joe's influence in American policy", if there are aliens from Venus. If Joe Biden influenced the NASA missions agenda to include investigating Venus. If Joe received money for influencing the mission. If...

Circumstantial evidence (CE) is very important. People are convicted of crimes everyday because of it. The time line will show a “pattern” which is important when using CE. It is not just this current conversation. We can throw out the “Hunter paying Joe’s bills” altogether and there is still more than enough CE, in my opinion, to insist a official investigation.

But, there is evidence that Eric indeed paid some of Joe’s bill, no doubt. And evidence that he had an account he called his own in which he paid some of Joes bills from. Equally he both discussed his doing so with Hunter, and directly with Joe. In one e-mail Hunter said Joe used up all the line of credit, and that Eric was involved in that also. We know Joe apparently took money from Hunters salary. We know that Hunter is less than reputable, a lobbyist, had foreign dealings and received a salary from a Russian backed Oligarch who is on the lam. We know his business partner, who was well acquainted with JB is a convicted felon serving time for fraud and conspiracy. There is a lot more that has been discussed and that we haven't discussed that create the pattern. CE like Vadym Pozharsky, James and hunter in China and much more which we haven’t got into yet.

Can Joe be tied to all this…Maybe, maybe not. Joes says he never asked his son about his personal business, which in my opinion is just imaginable. But,again, there is a whole lot more to discuss, that lend to CE pointing Hunter/family and friends, to Joe.