NBC news story on Hunter Biden

[Schreech]

Apparently “lobbyist” is another term that markkk doesn’t seem to understand…his understanding of what “lobbyists” do seems to be entirely informed by pop culture and hollywood caricatures of evil lobbyists manipulating politicians as it’s apparent he has never actually met or worked with any actual “lobbyists”. Markkk is the personification of:

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”

From today forward, I will refer to the Dunning-Kruger effect as “the markkk malady”

[honorentheos]

Markk, you use the word "know" much as a Mormon does bearing their testimony. That is how religious belief works.

Let's shift this to less religious talk and speak of probabilities. And let's start with these two sentences from the text fight.

“I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years."

First sentence: Said in a text between Hunter and his 24 year old daughter with whom he is arguing over money. Made in context of telling her she needs to start paying for herself.

30 years is roughly the period of time between when the text was written and when Hunter and his ex-wife met and began a romantic relationship. His wife wasn't a major bread winner though she appears to have been part of a non-profit during the last few years of their marriage.

Knowing this, which is more probable? That Hunter is speaking of having to pay for their immediate family during the 30 years since meeting his daughters mother? Or that he meant the entire extended Biden family? Even though during that time his father, step-mother, and older brother were always employed and Hunter had worked for Joe on his campaigns at periods during those 30 years? I'd say the probability it is speaking of the immediate family including the person speaking and the person receiving the text is very high. The probability it includes Joe Biden? Very low. There is simply no evidence we should include Joe under the term, "entire family" here. The probability he would have literally paid for everything for the entire extended Biden family over the past 30 years? Essentially zero.

Sentence two:
"But don’t worry, unlike pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary.”

The claim is that this sentence refers to Hunter paying Joe's bills, requiring half of Hunters salary. The evidence claimed to support this is typically tying sentence 1 above with the assumption it includes Joe Biden, and the emails from 2010 where Eric Schwerin discusses paying repair bills on Joe's estates out of funds owned by Joe Biden with Hunter.

To say this is a statement about paying Joe's bills demands accepting the less probable meaning of the first sentence along with unsupported interpretations of the emails and assumptions about Hunters money making it's way into Joe's pocket somehow. It demands one insert a reading of the entire text as really being about Hunter and Joe rather than a small private fight between Hunter and his eldest daughter. That suggesting Hunter and his daughter have the same degree of infatuation with Joe Biden as conservative media where even private text fights can't escape the subject.

We don't know what Hunter meant by statement 2, and by extension we don't know that Hunter paid Joe Biden's bills. I'd say it's very unlikely he did based on the probabilities of all the issues that need prove true for that to then follow rather than many more probable meanings.

Using cult language like, "We know..." when that is clearly not the case gives credence to the impression you are echoing the COCO.

[Markk]

Markk, you use the word "know" much as a Mormon does bearing their testimony. That is how religious belief works.

Let's shift this to less religious talk and speak of probabilities. And let's start with these two sentences from the text fight.

“I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years."

First sentence: Said in a text between Hunter and his 24 year old daughter with whom he is arguing over money. Made in context of telling her she needs to start paying for herself.

30 years is roughly the period of time between when the text was written and when Hunter and his ex-wife met and began a romantic relationship. His wife wasn't a major bread winner though she appears to have been part of a non-profit during the last few years of their marriage.

Knowing this, which is more probable? That Hunter is speaking of having to pay for their immediate family during the 30 years since meeting his daughters mother? Or that he meant the entire extended Biden family? Even though during that time his father, step-mother, and older brother were always employed and Hunter had worked for Joe on his campaigns at periods during those 30 years? I'd say the probability it is speaking of the immediate family including the person speaking and the person receiving the text is very high. The probability it includes Joe Biden? Very low. There is simply no evidence we should include Joe under the term, "entire family" here. The probability he would have literally paid for everything for the entire extended Biden family over the past 30 years? Essentially zero.

Sentence two:
"But don’t worry, unlike pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary.”

The claim is that this sentence refers to Hunter paying Joe's bills, requiring half of Hunters salary. The evidence claimed to support this is typically tying sentence 1 above with the assumption it includes Joe Biden, and the emails from 2010 where Eric Schwerin discusses paying repair bills on Joe's estates out of funds owned by Joe Biden with Hunter.

To say this is a statement about paying Joe's bills demands accepting the less probable meaning of the first sentence along with unsupported interpretations of the emails and assumptions about Hunters money making it's way into Joe's pocket somehow. It demands one insert a reading of the entire text as really being about Hunter and Joe rather than a small private fight between Hunter and his eldest daughter. That suggesting Hunter and his daughter have the same degree of infatuation with Joe Biden as conservative media where even private text fights can't escape the subject.

We don't know what Hunter meant by statement 2, and by extension we don't know that Hunter paid Joe Biden's bills. I'd say it's very unlikely he did based on the probabilities of all the issues that need prove true for that to then follow rather than many more probable meanings.

Using cult language like, "We know..." when that is clearly not the case gives credence to the impression you are echoing the COCO.

Okay…but “we have” CE that exists, that leads to what “we know.” This stray is just a little bit of this. The news I read today, but haven’t confirmed it yet, is that Eric visited the White House 19 times during Joes VP. Half of them with Joe…I believe he was with Rosemont at the time…but I need to read more..if true…more CE and each visit should go to the times line.

[honorentheos]

It was in 2010.

And we don't "know" much if anything. Probabilities, Markk.

[honorentheos]

Here's what the NY Post is reporting. The one meeting directly with Biden is in 2010.

The Schwerin White House visits included:

Meeting with Joe Biden aide Evan Ryan (10/28/2009)
Meeting with Jill Biden special assistant Meg Campbell (2/13/2010)
Meeting with Joe Biden assistant Michele Smith (10/24/2010)
Meeting with Joe Biden (11/17/2010)
Meeting with Joe Biden assistant Kellen Suber (8/22/2011)
Meeting with Jill Biden aide Betsy Massey (3/31/2012)
Meeting with Joe Biden assistant Michele Smith (2/7/2012)
Meeting with Joe Biden’s Director of Administration Faisal Amin (3/28/2013)
Meeting with Joe Biden assistant Kathy Chung (5/20/2013)

[Markk]

Again, I need to look at this all, but if true…this is all more Circumstantial Evidence lending to the pattern…keep in mind, around the time of Eric’s alleged visit to the White House, and meeting with the VP…there was an e-mail, from Eric to Hunter, that read something like this… “ 'Your Dad just called me… He could use some positive news about his future earnings potential,…

We know…using my cult phrase, that Joe has met with Archer from Burisma, who is in prison for fraud, and now we find out he may have met with Burisma president, and lobbyist Eric S at he White House. Eric is apparently under scrutiny in the current investigation of Hunter for money laundering and forign lobbying issues.

CNN reported…

The probe, led by the US Attorney in Wilmington, Delaware, began as early as 2018 and concerns multiple financial and business activities in foreign countries dating to when Biden's father was vice president. Investigators have examined whether Hunter Biden and some of his associates violated money laundering, tax and foreign lobbying laws, as well as firearm and other regulations, multiple sources said.

To do so, law enforcement has gathered information from lobbyists connected to Hunter Biden, from his business partners, and from others who've observed his financial engagements, including a woman with whom he had a child.

Is Eric one of these associates looked at in the probe? I don’t know.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics ... index.html

[honorentheos]

Again, I need to look at this all, but if true…this is all more Circumstantial Evidence lending to the pattern…keep in mind, around the time of Eric’s alleged visit to the White House, and meeting with the VP…there was an e-mail, from Eric to Hunter, that read something like this… “ 'Your Dad just called me… He could use some positive news about his future earnings potential,…

We know…using my cult phrase, that Joe has met with Archer from Burisma, who is in prison for fraud, and now we find out he may have met with Burisma president, and lobbyist Eric S at he White House. Eric is apparently under scrutiny in the current investigation of Hunter for money laundering and forign lobbying issues.

CNN reported…

The probe, led by the US Attorney in Wilmington, Delaware, began as early as 2018 and concerns multiple financial and business activities in foreign countries dating to when Biden's father was vice president. Investigators have examined whether Hunter Biden and some of his associates violated money laundering, tax and foreign lobbying laws, as well as firearm and other regulations, multiple sources said.

To do so, law enforcement has gathered information from lobbyists connected to Hunter Biden, from his business partners, and from others who've observed his financial engagements, including a woman with whom he had a child.

Is Eric one of these associates looked at in the probe? I don’t know.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics ... index.html

Morley was right all along. My apologies.

[Markk]

While reading I came across this…

“In October 2009, just months after Hunter co-founded Rosemont Seneca, Schwerin met with Evan Ryan, Vice President Biden’s assistant for intergovernmental affairs and public liaison, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building where the vice president’s office is based, according to the visitor logs.

While working in the halls of power Ryan acted as a conduit for Hunter Biden and his cronies, hard drive emails show.

In one email from February 18, 2010, Ryan received a request from Chris Sloan, Director of Government Relations for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades advocating that union lawyer Craig Becker be nominated to the National Labor Relations Board. Sloan asked that Vice President Biden press Obama on the issue. Hunter was CCed.

“Thanks Chris — I will forward this one,” she responded to both.”

If this is true…Aside from the politics…why would Hunter be cc’d on this? The only reason I can think of is that Hunter was indeed lobbying in regards to his fathers position. This lends to the Rosemont/White House connection.



https://nypost.com/2022/04/23/joe-biden ... ite-house/

[honorentheos]

In one email from February 18, 2010, Ryan received a request from Chris Sloan, Director of Government Relations for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades advocating that union lawyer Craig Becker be nominated to the National Labor Relations Board. Sloan asked that Vice President Biden press Obama on the issue. Hunter was CCed.

“Thanks Chris — I will forward this one,” she responded to both.”

Break down what this is actually saying. The NYPost presents it in a way that sets you up to read into it, like COCO does. But remove that and figure out what actually happened.

It's a theme with the reports. They play with timelines, innuendo heightened, conclusions pre-drawn. But rarely do they let the evidence speak for itself.

[Markk]

In one email from February 18, 2010, Ryan received a request from Chris Sloan, Director of Government Relations for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades advocating that union lawyer Craig Becker be nominated to the National Labor Relations Board. Sloan asked that Vice President Biden press Obama on the issue. Hunter was CCed.

“Thanks Chris — I will forward this one,” she responded to both.”

Break down what this is actually saying. The NYPost presents it in a way that sets you up to read into it, like COCO does. But remove that and figure out what actually happened.

It's a theme with the reports. They play with timelines, innuendo heightened, conclusions pre-drawn. But rarely do they let the evidence speak for itself.

If this is true…

Again…why was Hunter cc’d? If you want to put it in a more correct context fine, crap like this happens everyday in Washington. But, I believe what the authors of the article were trying to do was to show a “cronyism” connection to the VP…i.e. Rosemont/White House.

What favor would the unions/Sloan and Becker receive from this, and if Hunter was “lobbying this”…what would he receive in return? Was Hunter receiving a salary from the trade union? Was this a freebie?

Here is a interesting read… https://represent.us/action/5-facts-lobbyists/