Hunter Biden to Plead Guilty

[Belsnickel]

(06-23-2023, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The problem here, Stewy, is that the left leaning posters in this thread are being just as blind to their own partisanships as the "MAGA" people they point and laugh at.  This entire thread was an attempt to mitigate Biden's crimes and point out that the DOJ was fair and evenhanded with him.  Once these fallacies were pointed out it became more about, "well, he's just getting the same preferential treatment as any other wealthy, connected person".

This thread has been very revealing, and not in the intended fashion.

I think my problem is that there have been so many cries of wolf from all sides in the past 8 years or so that I just look at it all and don't trust it. There is not a claim from any of our officials that I would trust at face value. I operate on the "show me the evidence" approach to everything these days. Claims need to have something backing them up (like what we have with the federal indictment of Trump). There have just been too many people claiming they have this groundbreaking revelation about Biden, Trump, Russia, China, whatever. Show me the receipts if you want me to believe any of it.

In this case with Hunter Biden, I don't have all the information. None of us really do. We are basing it all off of hearsay. I have zero doubt he is getting preferential treatment, but that isn't something that surprises me. I don't like it, but right now there are a lot of things I don't like about what is going on in our government and this is very low on the list.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2023, 02:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think my problem is that there have been so many cries of wolf from all sides in the past 8 years or so that I just look at it all and don't trust it. There is not a claim from any of our officials that I would trust at face value. I operate on the "show me the evidence" approach to everything these days. Claims need to have something backing them up (like what we have with the federal indictment of Trump). There have just been too many people claiming they have this groundbreaking revelation about Biden, Trump, Russia, China, whatever. Show me the receipts if you want me to believe any of it.

In this case with Hunter Biden, I don't have all the information. None of us really do. We are basing it all off of hearsay. I have zero doubt he is getting preferential treatment, but that isn't something that surprises me. I don't like it, but right now there are a lot of things I don't like about what is going on in our government and this is very low on the list.

All of this I can understand and largely agree with.  My issue is with the very intent of this thread, and the subsequent, "look how superior we are to you" tone of it.  This forum, and I hope this would not be disputed, is largely dominated by left leaning people.  It frequently devolves into a circle of group congratulations and ideological reinforcement.  Those few that dare disagree are treated with disdain and contempt, and I know you notice that many largely confine their responses to the low hanging fruit on the other side of the aisle.

I'm not putting any special responsibility on you, or anyone else for that matter, but it would definitely help the level of discussion in this sub-forum if poor behavior, or ideological circle J's were called out by those not engaging in it regardless of its origins.

[GMDino]

(06-23-2023, 02:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think my problem is that there have been so many cries of wolf from all sides in the past 8 years or so that I just look at it all and don't trust it. There is not a claim from any of our officials that I would trust at face value. I operate on the "show me the evidence" approach to everything these days. Claims need to have something backing them up (like what we have with the federal indictment of Trump). There have just been too many people claiming they have this groundbreaking revelation about Biden, Trump, Russia, China, whatever. Show me the receipts if you want me to believe any of it.

In this case with Hunter Biden, I don't have all the information. None of us really do. We are basing it all off of hearsay. I have zero doubt he is getting preferential treatment, but that isn't something that surprises me. I don't like it, but right now there are a lot of things I don't like about what is going on in our government and this is very low on the list.

There are plenty examples of people being out on bond or not even charged when you or I would have been held in jail until the trial.

Whether Hunter cut a good deal or not (probably because he listened to his lawyers) he was investigated, charges were filed, a plea was received and the investigation remains open.  

We had a long discussion just two weeks ago about whether Trump should even be CHARGED despite the evidence and investigation because he has a large group of followers.  People are suggesting a pardon "for the good of the country" and "to avoid violence".

To me THAT would be preferential treatment above and beyond the usual rich white guy getting away with something.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2023, 03:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: There are plenty examples of people being out on bond or not even charged when you or I would have been held in jail until the trial.

Whether Hunter cut a good deal or not (probably because he listened to his lawyers) he was investigated, charges were filed, a plea was received and the investigation remains open.  

We had a long discussion just two weeks ago about whether Trump should even be CHARGED despite the evidence and investigation because he has a large group of followers.  People are suggesting a pardon "for the good of the country" and "to avoid violence".

To me THAT would be preferential treatment above and beyond the usual rich white guy getting away with something.  

It absolutely would be preferential treatment.  The difference here is that I in no way argue otherwise.  

[Stewy]

(06-23-2023, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The problem here, Stewy, is that the left leaning posters in this thread are being just as blind to their own partisanships as the "MAGA" people they point and laugh at.  This entire thread was an attempt to mitigate Biden's crimes and point out that the DOJ was fair and evenhanded with him.  Once these fallacies were pointed out it became more about, "well, he's just getting the same preferential treatment as any other wealthy, connected person".

This thread has been very revealing, and not in the intended fashion.

Cant really argue that nor was I trying to.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2023, 03:55 PM)Stewy Wrote: Cant really argue that nor was I trying to.

I know you weren't, the post was not meant to be accusatory.

[Stewy]

(06-23-2023, 03:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know you weren't, the post was not meant to be accusatory.

No worries.  I didn't take it that way, but I didn't know how else to respond though I felt compelled to.  haha

Carry on brother.

[Dill]

(06-23-2023, 01:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  He got a better deal than your standard rich person would.  Again, if the terms that have been reported are correct.  You started this thread and its entire intent appeared to be mitigating Biden's crimes.  You even scoffed at the lack of "provable felonies".  Well there is one, and it's a rather sever one, carrying ten years confinement time in a Federal prison.  That's more confinement time then you'd get for a robbery in CA.

Own it, you started this thread to own the "Trumptards" and the minute it was pointed out that Biden absolutely did get a sweetheart deal you moved the goalposts.  Your partisanship is brazenly obvious in this thread and yet I don't think you see it.

Miss me with your false equivalencies and fascicle argument, Dill.  I see your back to you're ignore the points you can't refute tactic when responding.  When you decide to adult a little and respond to the actual points I made I'll be here.  

I responded to your “points.”

You cannot demonstrate any false equivalence in my posts.

I’d never claim you weren’t refuting a point without specifying that point.

Calling people “partisan” isn’t “making a point.” It’s just sharing an impression. Same for calling my posts “facile” and urging me to be an “adult.” That’s not a good faith invitation to rational dialogue. It just converts partisan attacks to personal.

If I “miss” all that it, it is not “ignoring points I can’t refute.”

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2023, 05:02 PM)Dill Wrote: I responded to your “points.”

No, you didn't.

Here's my post;

(06-22-2023, 05:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A fair point, the exact terms of the deal have not been officially released.



Who said jail time?  I've said on here, repeatedly, that a first time felon is very unlikely to get jail time (unless it's a felony like murder, rape, etc.).  What is unusual about the terms, as reported, is that there is no grant of probation.  A plea to a felony with ten years confinement time with the conditions of only drug treatment and no further felonies in two years, then dismissal?  That's the definition of a sweetheart deal.  Treatment followed by 3-5 years federal probation would be an actually reasonable settlement.  No probation at all?  Insanely preferential treatment.


I'm not a federal prosecutor, so I have no idea.  Does that have any bearing on Biden getting a sweetheart deal?

and here's your response;

(06-23-2023, 01:11 AM)Dill Wrote: Yes. I found it in the statement below.

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Hunter-Biden-to-Plead-Guilty?pid=1366459#pid1366459

Notice the underlined in my above post.  That's the part you didn't respond to.  So, no, you absolutely did not, you prevaricator.  I'll stop short of calling you a liar, but your claim in this post brings you awfully close.

Quote:You cannot demonstrate any false equivalence in my posts.

Yes, I can.  You are conflating a federal prosecutors time to indict Trump with the Hunter Biden deal.  They are not the same thing, i.e. they are not equivalents.  You are building a strawman to deflect from your logical inconsistency brought on by your blatant partisanship.  Put simply, you're blowing it in real time and all your denials of fact, such as in this very post, do nothing to change that.

Quote:I’d never claim you weren’t refuting a point without specifying that point.

Is it necessary when you're quoting a post of mine without addressing 90% of the content of said post?  Again, miss me with your obfuscation and deflection.

Quote:Calling people “partisan” isn’t “making a point.”  It’s just sharing an impression. Same for calling my posts “facile” and urging me to be an “adult.” That’s not a good faith invitation to rational dialogue. It just converts partisan attacks to personal.

Actually, calling your post facile is the textbook definition of describing facile, for reasons shown above.

Quote:If I “miss” all that it, it is not “ignoring points I can’t refute.”

Quite simply, you could easily avoid this by, you know, actually responding to a whole post instead of what you think gives you a "pithy" retort.  You, sir, are no Rowan Atkinson.  But you knew this and are merely playing theatre here.  I honestly thought you were done with this kind of sophomoric posturing, but alas, 'tis not the case.

[Dill]

(06-23-2023, 05:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Notice the underlined in my above post.  That's the part you didn't respond to.  So, no, you absolutely did not, you prevaricator.  I'll stop short of calling you a liar, but your claim in this post brings

Wait! I didn’t respond to the part you addressed to Pally, and THAT’S why I am a “prevaricator” who’s decided not to be an “adult,” a “sophomoric” postured “playing theatre” and using his “ignore points you can’t refute” tactic?

When asked for specific points—some precision—you just requote the whole again, questions, musings, premises etc.

And regarding those “points”:

First, you’ve not adequately addressed Pally’s arguments, which are more in accord with expert legal opinion. You’ve just accused her of moving YOUR goalposts. You’ve decided Biden got a sweetheart deal. End of discussion—almost. She still needs to own her “brazenly obvious partisanship” in “mitigating Biden’s crimes.”

Second, we may have enough of the Biden plea for confirmation bias, but as Bels noted, not enough for any final assessment.

Third, I’m astounded that someone the focus of a very political Congressional investigation can be so lightly characterized as receiving “preferential” treatment—as if that were the norm with all misdemeanor tax/firearm felony cases, and the only pressure on the case is his father’s so far invisible influence. As if joe owned the FBI the way trump owns the GOP Congress. And you get to that conclusion by setting partisanship aside?

I’ll address the other misrepresentation, my “false equivalence,”in the next post.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-25-2023, 12:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Wait! I didn’t respond to the part you addressed to Pally, and THAT’S why I am a “prevaricator” who’s decided not to be an “adult,” a “sophomoric” postured “playing theatre” and using his “ignore points you can’t refute” tactic?

There's literally nothing in that post that wasn't directed at you.  It was a response to your quote.  Literally anyone can look back and see this, plain as day, and I also linked both my post and your response.  So, yes, this is why you are correctly labeled a prevaricator.

Quote:When asked for specific points—some precision—you just requote the whole again, questions, musings, premises etc.

Which I literally did.

Quote:And regarding those “points”:

First, you’ve not adequately addressed Pally’s  arguments, which are more in accord with expert legal opinion. You’ve just accused her of moving YOUR goalposts. You’ve decided Biden got a sweetheart deal. End of discussion—almost. She still needs to own her “brazenly obvious partisanship” in “mitigating Biden’s crimes.”

Again, no, no and no.  I made points in the post you quoted that you ignored, and continue to ignore.  You are not discussing in good faith here.  Honestly, one wonders if you ever really do at this point.  If the deal is as reported, a point I already conceded but you ignored, it absolutely is a sweetheart deal.

Quote:Second, we may have enough of the Biden plea for confirmation bias, but as Bels noted, not enough for any final assessment.

And again, a point I have already conceded, which you'd know if you responded to a whole post instead of cherry picking what you think you can score cheap internet points on.

Quote:Third, I’m astounded that someone the focus of a very political Congressional investigation can be so lightly characterized as receiving “preferential” treatment—as if that were the norm with all misdemeanor tax/firearm felony cases, and the only pressure on the case is his father’s so far invisible influence. As if joe owned the FBI the way trump owns the GOP Congress. And you get to that conclusion by setting partisanship aside?

You're right, it's not the norm.  One wonders why tax charges were filed as a misdemeanor.  One also wonders how one can get away with a felony carrying ten years of confinement time, in federal prison no less, with only attending drug treatment and not being a bad boy for "x" years.  Literal robbery carries less confinement time than ten years.

Quote:I’ll address the other misrepresentation, my “false equivalence,”in the next post.

Oh, I can't wait.  Do you mind if I ignore 90% of your post when I respond?  You've kind of set up the ground rules for discussions with you so I'd like to be consistent.  Please let me know.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2023, 02:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think my problem is that there have been so many cries of wolf from all sides in the past 8 years or so that I just look at it all and don't trust it. There is not a claim from any of our officials that I would trust at face value. I operate on the "show me the evidence" approach to everything these days. Claims need to have something backing them up (like what we have with the federal indictment of Trump). There have just been too many people claiming they have this groundbreaking revelation about Biden, Trump, Russia, China, whatever. Show me the receipts if you want me to believe any of it.

All of which is understandable.  I completely agree, we should reserve final judgment for when an official announcement regarding the terms is announced.  But that isn't the purpose of this thread.  The purpose of the thread is to own the "MAGAt's" and point out that the DOJ was fair and Hunter Biden didn't have a slew of "provable felonies".  You're the only one I've seen who's left leaning correctly pointing out that this deal, if it exists as stated, is preferential treatment.  I have zero doubt you'd have hard core Trump defenders displaying the same cognitive dissonance in a thread about Trump (that is if all threads didn't turn into Trump threads   ), the difference being that they would be dogpiled by the same people displaying similar behavior here.

Quote:In this case with Hunter Biden, I don't have all the information. None of us really do. We are basing it all off of hearsay. I have zero doubt he is getting preferential treatment, but that isn't something that surprises me. I don't like it, but right now there are a lot of things I don't like about what is going on in our government and this is very low on the list.

Exactly correct, and I don't disagree with any of this.  Sadly, you seem to be in the minority on this one.

[Dill]

(06-23-2023, 12:25 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: \This is not going away, Comer and Grasserly are unraveling the shell companies and have found money sent to HB and it looking like Joe Biden and 7 other family members. China, Ukraine (who Joe boasted fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma and his son) or he would hold up aid to Ukraine.

https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html

They have millions of dollars laundered to the Biden family from numerous foreign countries.

Did you ever think your news source (many did not cover the whistleblower testimony is wrong? Wouldn't a reputable news source cover this revelation of corruption by not only the Bidens, but the FBI and DOJ covering up crimes for the Bidens?

It is sad Congress has to investigate what the FBI and DOJ will not due to political bias.

The good news is the majority of America now agrees, the Bidens are corrupt. They also agree the FBI and the DOJ are also corrupt.

I googled how many Presidents or Vice Presidents threatened a foreign President they would withhold millions of dollars unless they fired a prosector.

Hmmmm..............In our entire history the answer is 1 and it was Joe Biden whose son was on the board of Burisma, a company the prosecutor was investigating for corruption.
Sorry, put your head in the sand but facts tell us HB was on the board of Burisma making millions of dollars with zero gas and oil experience. This is just one example JB had a hand in business dealings of HB. Joe lied and said never involved or discussed anything with HB and his business dealings. Only a partisan hack would believe JB was telling the truth.
Ask yourself a question, how do JB become rich on a senator's salary and teacher's salary (Jill) when she also took off 4 years from teaching?

Say luvnit, I’m glad you answered this. I’d like to address your points about sourcing, but at the moment I’m limited to my phone. I can’t incorporate links.*

A couple points though— Biden’s “expertise was not supposed to be in oil or gas, was it? His expertise was supposed to be in business. There is nothing illegal about that. Or about his salary. It is less concerning than Chinese patents acquired by trump’s daughter while working in the WH.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/22/ivankas-trademark-requests-were-fast-tracked-in-china-after-trump-was-elected/?sh=2c5f5cc31d60
Or the Qatari’s BILLION DOLLAR+ bail out of Kushner real estate after a GCC. boycott. https://www.newsweek.com/kushners-financial-link-qatar-ticking-time-bomb-biographer-1766537
Or the 2 BILLION the Saudis directed to Kushner after he left office. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html

As far as joe threatening a foreign president, he didn’t personally have the power to withhold anything. Do you understand that he was articulating US foreign policy in concert with the EU and IMF? 
https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc.  
https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-corruption/imf-and-world-bank-say-ukraine-corruption-fight-is-threatened-idINL8N1O71BH

Biden's threat was a live issue in Jan/Feb of 2020.https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD067.pdf
But by June it had been put to rest. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/.
"Reputable news sources" were covering "Biden corruption" in Ukraine 3 years ago. And came up empty.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-ukraine/ukraine-found-no-evidence-against-hunter-biden-in-case-audit-former-top-prosecutor-idUSKBN23B2RB.

As the above sources make plain, the reason the prosecutor was fired was precisely because he WASN'T prosecuting corruption in Ukraine, and that was a longstanding problem holding up billions in loans. 

So the question now is why you are coming at us with this debunked narrative like it's all astounding revelation and "breaking news." Money flowing from Ukraine to Hunter Biden was "unraveled" years ago. You don't seem aware of these previous investigations and their findings. You don't seem to have any more evidence now that Joe lied about discussing business dealings with Hunter than investigators had three years ago. Just something everyone but a hack "knows." 

Trump, on the other hand, did not have the right to withhold congressionally authorized aid to Ukraine, and then ask its president to open an investigation into his rival for office. Seems your sources have flipped the law here—casting Biden’s actions, not Trump’s, as outside the law. And you have followed their narrative without cross checking it. 

I am reading the 1st whistleblower transcript now and will get that to that later. A caution though--whistleblower testimony is not prima facie "revelation of corruption." The claims have to be examined and checked against existing record. Remember what happened after the last build up to whistleblower testimony. https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-whistleblower-hearing-chaos-jim-jordan-1801284.

*just got my computer back online for a redo of this message.

[Dill]

(06-25-2023, 12:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's literally nothing in that post that wasn't directed at you.  It was a response to your quote.  Literally anyone can look back and see this, plain as day, and I also linked both my post and your response.  So, yes, this is why you are correctly labeled a prevaricator.

In post #40 you are responding to me. But in my post #68 I was speaking of your post #59. 

There you quoted a line from me directing you to the source of my coupling HB with Trump, demanding I "miss you" with my bullshit. Or whatever, claiming I've made a false equivalence and I'm ignoring claims points I can't refute. Along with personal attack.

Just a reminder--I have posed quite a few challenging questions/arguments to you and on many threads, and you've not responded (listing by thread and post # provided upon request). Why now have you decided that I'm such a "prevaricator" for not responding to points you've decided are important. Why is "ignoring points I can't refute" suddenly MY tactic, not yours? Why are you exempted from the charge?

(06-25-2023, 12:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:When asked for specific points—some precision—you just requote the whole again, questions, musings, premises etc.

Which I literally did.

Again, no, no and no.  I made points in the post you quoted that you ignored, and continue to ignore.  You are not discussing in good faith here.  Honestly, one wonders if you ever really do at this point.  If the deal is as reported, a point I already conceded but you ignored, it absolutely is a sweetheart deal.
And again, a point I have already conceded, which you'd know if you responded to a whole post instead of cherry picking what you think you can score cheap internet points on.
You're right, it's not the norm.  One wonders why tax charges were filed as a misdemeanor.  One also wonders how one can get away with a felony carrying ten years of confinement time, in federal prison no less, with only attending drug treatment and not being a bad boy for "x" years.  Literal robbery carries less confinement time than ten years.

You say there is not enough known for a final assessment, yet continue to insist on a final assessment, bolded above. 
Mix that in with questions and other musings, and your "points" are far from clear.
That's why I ask that you not re-quote entire passages when I ask for specification. And as you say, you literally did that anyway.

I'm still trying to square your claims about "confinement time" above with the legal expertise offered in the following:
Did Hunter Biden get off easy? We asked the experts.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/21/hunter-biden-plea-deal-experts-00102996
Legal experts say the charges against Hunter Biden are rarely brought
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/legal-experts-say-charges-hunter-biden-are-rarely-brought-rcna90191
Experts say Hunter Biden deal is actually "harsh" — and question when Trump will face tax charges
https://www.salon.com/2023/06/21/experts-say-hunter-biden-deal-is-actually-harsh--and-question-when-will-face-charges/
Legal experts cast doubt on GOP claims of a ‘sweetheart deal’ in Hunter Biden case
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/21/politics/hunter-biden-sweetheart-deal-tax-charges/index.html

To which I again add that few tax/gun offenders have a Congressional investigation directed at them. Nothing "sweet" about that. Not sure why I have to "refute" legal points that aren't established in the view of legal experts. Can't I at least "ignore" them until they are? 

(06-25-2023, 12:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, I can't wait.  Do you mind if I ignore 90% of your post when I respond?  You've kind of set up the ground rules for discussions with you so I'd like to be consistent.  Please let me know.

LOL  If I address someone else in my post, you are certainly free to ignore 100% of that. In any case, my posts usually have 1-3 "points" you can focus on, surrounding text being support (e.g., there are 3 in this post). I'd don't scatter a lot of "points" in a post and then demand people address every one. Or if I do that's not a well made argument, just a series of impressions.

One of my “ground rules” is don’t personally attack people you are arguing with. That means don't call them "liars" or "prevaricators." No one arguing in good faith does that. If you think there is a lie, then don't claim it, show it. Most of the time, calling people "liars" has no explanatory or demonstrative power whatsoever. It is just a deflection. On occasion I do think people are "prevaricating," but I never accuse them of that. I line up and juxtapose the incriminating posts and let others decide. It's always possible there is a misunderstanding, so I give them a chance to explain. If you don't do that, if you launch into line after line of invective, then you are just obfuscating, preventing explanation/clarification. 

Good faith also means allowing time for response/cross examination and avoiding misconstruction to address that arguments in their strongest form.

You don't object to any of these ground rules, do you? 

Give me some space now, to respond to the "false equivalence" misconstruction. That goes more to the heart of this thread, and the value of starting one on the topic of a Hunter Biden investigation at the moment Trump is under indictment and multiple investigations.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2023, 01:18 AM)Dill Wrote: So it was literally me, not Pally, you accused of starting the thread to own "Trumptards"?

Nope, but you weren't responding to that part of the post post, where you?  Like I said, prevaricator.

Quote: I think anyone can literally look at your post #59 and see that the first two paragraphs are addressed to Pally.

Indeed, and not you.  Only the last bit was to you.  I guess the multi-quote function has confused you.  I'll remember that and ensure I never include you in a multi-quote response again to avoid your becoming confused.

Quote:Then you quoted a line from me directing you to the source of my coupling HB with Trump, demanding I "miss you" with my bullshit. Or whatever, claiming I've made a false equivalence and I'm ignoring claims points I can't refute. Along with personal attack.

Indeed, as your response ignored the vast majority of my post, as already stated.  Endless repetition seems to be necessary when dealing with you.

Quote:Just a reminder--I have posed quite a few challenging questions/arguments to you and no one else on many threads, and you've simply ducked them.

Is that so?  Please confine your examples to this thread, as this is the thread in question.  I have no time for your strawman arguments.

Quote:Why now have you decided that I'm such a "prevaricator" for not responding to points addressed to Pally.

They weren't addressed to Pally.  Again, I linked the post in question.  Pally was nowhere to be found.

Quote:Why are you exempted from the charge of "ignoring points you can't refute"? 

I'm not.  Please cite an example in this thread.

Quote:You say there is not enough known for a final assessment, yet continue to insist on a final assessment, bolded above. 

Incorrect.  I stated, repeatedly, that if the terms are as reported this is my opinion.  Honestly, there's no way you're dense enough to not have absorbed that, hence I must assume your obtuseness is deliberate.

Quote:Mix that in with questions and other musings, and your "points" are far from clear.

No one else seems to be unclear as to my position.

Quote:That's why I ask that you not re-quote entire passages when I ask for specification. And as you say, you literally did that anyway.

Did you?  Please cite those instances and my failure to adhere to your orders.

Quote:I'm still trying to square your claims about "confinement time" above with the legal expertise offered in the following:
Did Hunter Biden get off easy? We asked the experts.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/21/hunter-biden-plea-deal-experts-00102996

This site doesn't agree with you entirely and, in fact, agrees with me as well.

“In my experience, prosecutors want felonies in tax cases,” he said. “The fact that he’s only pleading guilty to misdemeanors suggests special treatment.”

Quote:Legal experts say the charges against Hunter Biden are rarely brought

Quote:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/legal-experts-say-charges-hunter-biden-are-rarely-brought-rcna90191
Experts say Hunter Biden deal is actually "harsh" — and question when Trump will face tax charges
https://www.salon.com/2023/06/21/experts-say-hunter-biden-deal-is-actually-harsh--and-question-when-will-face-charges/
Legal experts cast doubt on GOP claims of a ‘sweetheart deal’ in Hunter Biden case
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/21/politics/hunter-biden-sweetheart-deal-tax-charges/index.html

Left wing garbage sites.  This is equivalent to my quoting Breitbart and Fox on the Trump indictment.  

Ignoring the fact that not everyone in your sources agrees with your position, confinement time is a rather easy gauge of the perceived seriousness of a criminal act.  As the purpose of confinement time is to remove a dangerous person from society so they can no longer victimize others a longer confinement time is a clear indication of the perceived seriousness of said crime.  This is not a complicated concept.

Quote:To which I again add that few tax/gun offenders have a Congressional investigation directed at them. Nothing "sweet" about that. Not sure why I have to "refute" legal points that aren't established in the view of legal experts. Can't I at least "ignore" them until they are? 

No, you can't, as they were charged.  A ten year confinement time gun related felony is a serious charge.  Don't you listen to Joe Biden about the seriousness of gun related crime?

Quote:LOL  If I address someone else in my post, you are certainly free to ignore 100% of that. 

Cool, since the post you responded to was directed 100% towards you, you have no such leeway.  Multi-quote confusion strikes again.

Quote:One of my “ground rules” is don’t personally attack people you are arguing with. That means don't call them "liars" or "prevaricators." No one arguing in good faith does that.

Incorrect.  They don't unless it's warranted.  I your case it is 100% warranted, and continues to be based on your responses.

Quote:If you think there is a lie, then don't just claim it; show it.

I did.

Quote:Most of the time, calling people "liars" has no explanatory or demonstrative power whatsoever. It is just a deflection. On occasion I do think people are "prevaricating," but I never accuse them of that. I line up and juxtapose the incriminating posts and let others decide. It's always possible there is a misunderstanding, so I give them a chance to explain. If you don't do that, if you launch into line after line of invective, then you are just obfuscating, preventing explanation/clarification. 

Cool story, bro.  Your self-congratulations aside, I'll let the other posters decide if I've met the burden of proof to label you as I have.

Quote:Good faith also means allowing time for response/cross examination and avoiding misconstruction to address that arguments in their strongest form.

You don't object to any of these ground rules, do you? 

Dill deflection.  You don't get to sprinkle sugar on a turd and call it a donut.  

Quote:Give me some space now, to respond to the "false equivalence" misconstruction. That goes more to the heart of this thread, and the value of starting one on the topic of a Hunter Biden investigation at the moment Trump is under indictment and multiple investigations.

Oh no, not at all.  You're the one who made the initial claim.  Please explain to all of us how the time taken to indict Trump has any bearing on the Biden plea deal.  

[BengalYankee]

(06-26-2023, 01:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Cool story, bro.  Your self-congratulations aside, I'll let the other posters decide if I've met the burden of proof to label you as I have.

Congratulations, you have met the burden of proof. 

 

[Dill]

(06-26-2023, 01:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, but you weren't responding to that part of the post post, where you?  Like I said, prevaricator.
Indeed, and not you.  Only the last bit was to you.  I guess the multi-quote function has confused you.  I'll remember that and ensure I never include you in a multi-quote response again to avoid your becoming confused.
Indeed, as your response ignored the vast majority of my post, as already stated.  Endless repetition seems to be necessary when dealing with you.
Is that so?  Please confine your examples to this thread, as this is the thread in question.  I have no time for your strawman arguments.
They weren't addressed to Pally.  Again, I linked the post in question.  Pally was nowhere to be found.
I'm not.  Please cite an example in this thread.
Incorrect.  I stated, repeatedly, that if the terms are as reported this is my opinion.  Honestly, there's no way you're dense enough to not have absorbed that, hence I must assume your obtuseness is deliberate.
No one else seems to be unclear as to my position.
Did you?  Please cite those instances and my failure to adhere to your orders.
This site doesn't agree with you entirely and, in fact, agrees with me as well.
“In my experience, prosecutors want felonies in tax cases,” he said. “The fact that he’s only pleading guilty to misdemeanors suggests special treatment.”
Left wing garbage sites.  This is equivalent to my quoting Breitbart and Fox on the Trump indictment.  
Ignoring the fact that not everyone in your sources agrees with your position, confinement time is a rather easy gauge of the perceived seriousness of a criminal act.  As the purpose of confinement time is to remove a dangerous person from society so they can no longer victimize others a longer confinement time is a clear indication of the perceived seriousness of said crime.  This is not a complicated concept.
No, you can't, as they were charged.  A ten year confinement time gun related felony is a serious charge.  Don't you listen to Joe Biden about the seriousness of gun related crime?
Cool, since the post you responded to was directed 100% towards you, you have no such leeway.  Multi-quote confusion strikes again.
Incorrect.  They don't unless it's warranted.  I your case it is 100% warranted, and continues to be based on your responses.
I did.
Cool story, bro.  Your self-congratulations aside, I'll let the other posters decide if I've met the burden of proof to label you as I have.
Dill deflection.  You don't get to sprinkle sugar on a turd and call it a donut.  
Oh no, not at all.  You're the one who made the initial claim.  Please explain to all of us how the time taken to indict Trump has any bearing on the Biden plea deal.  

Hmm, quippery.  Don't know if BY is clear as to your position, but I think he approves of the labeling. 

You don't exempt yourself from the "ignore arguments you can't refute"--on this thread.
 But if you do anywhere else then you don't really have a right to suddenly claim that for your standard on just this thread. 

Calling sources "Left wing garbage sites" doesn't refute or invalidate the legal opinions expressed therein by special agents, prosecutors and the like. They're all "leftists"? This is pre-judgment, not argument. And an example of ignoring what you can't refute. From this thread. 

And I said the legal points in question were not "established"; that means I'm saying there is disagreement about them, not that I'm ignoring that some argree with you. E.g., the Salon article presents both Republican and GOP views. The Republican assessment of McCarthy, for example, squares with your "non-partisan" view. But if yours is only an "opinion" not in final form, a simple enough concept to grasp, then why the insistence that I not "ignore" it? Threads have been shut down for less vitriol than you've poured into your demand for attention. 

Do you disagree that the gun charge brought against Hunter is a rarely used statute, as claimed in the CNN article? 

I don't know anything about tax codes, but I do see that my "leftist" sources are offering more specialist testimony than your "opinion."
E.g. the CNN article: “If Hunter Biden’s name was John or Jane Doe, no criminal tax prosecution would have ever been contemplated and he would have almost certainly been slotted into a pre-trial diversion program, saving the government the time and expense of a trial,” said Martin Sheil, a former supervisory special agent in the IRS Criminal Investigation.

"Good faith also means allowing time for response/cross examination and avoiding misconstruction to address that arguments in their strongest form" is "Dill deflection"? Not a standard of critical/philosophical discourse going back thousands of years, or if it is, not one you are interested in honoring? 

Finally, The TOC for this forum don't say "no personal attack--unless unless the attacker thinks it warranted."  That's because few people who regularly call others "prevaricators" or "liars" or engage in other bad behavior think it is unwarranted. A "warranted" stipulation would mean no TOC at all.

I don't really see a will to engage seriously with the issue in your last two posts; labeling has replaced argument.  But I'm still going to address the false equivalence charge, in case others are interested in the larger political context of the HB investigation. 

[Dill]

(06-26-2023, 01:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh no, not at all.  You're the one who made the initial claim.  Please explain to all of us how the time taken to indict Trump has any bearing on the Biden plea deal.  

Explain to all of "us"? Like EVERYONE here has missed the larger political forces which brought a GOP committee to bear on the "Biden Crime Family" right along with you? 

In my post #38, I respond to this statement from your post #36
So, yes, Biden got a sweetheart deal and Trump isn't being persecuted. See, it's easy when everything isn't viewed through a partisan lens.
My response to this linkage of Biden and Trump: Yes, sounds VERY easy, even before we know what "the deal" is.
Viewing the matter through non partisan lenses, how often do charges like those facing Biden bring jail time? 
How long does it usually take to prosecute people who steal government documents and refuse to return them? 

At this point, I’d already read that Biden’s charges rarely bring jail time. So I didn’t see anything especially “sweetheart” about him NOT getting jailtime. And nothing “preferential” in his becoming the object of a Congressional investigation following years of hounding by RWM.
You said Trump was not being persecuted. I agree. But I think anyone who’d snubbed the archives and set about hiding documents and resisting a subpoena would have been in jail last year. So it looks like HE is the one getting preferential treatment, while the RWM is clamoring about Biden’s sweetheart deal and Trump’s “persecution.” This less easy view didn’t register through your “non-partisan lenses.”

In #40 you addressed my question about Trump’s prosecution as follows” I'm not a federal prosecutor, so I have no idea.  Does that have any bearing on Biden getting a sweetheart deal?
Your juxtaposition of Biden and Trump in #36, and your insistence the former was getting a sweetheart deal, reminded of why there was Congressional interest in Biden at all. Trump’s investigation can’t have bearing on Biden’s sweetheart deal if he is not actually getting a sweetheart deal. But it can explain why a GOP Congressional committee is interested in him and the RWM has been hounding him for years.

As the pressure of multiple investigations mounted on Trump, the need on the Right to manufacture a counter-narrative of Biden corruption as counter-weight increased accordingly. E.g., on the day of Trump’s indictment in the documents case, there was during the day desultory coverage thereof on Fox. But in the evening, as the commentators came on, there was an orgy of “breaking news”—not about Trump, the first president in history to be criminally indicted, but about “whistleblowers” and new revelations about HB and Joe. Indictments were pending on the former. Not much about taxes, but about the flow of millions of dollars from China and Russia to the “Biden Crime Family,” leaving the impression the long-awaited smoking gun of Biden corruption at the VERY top was finally at hand. Again. (Review Luvnit’s posts here to see how effective that was.) Except for a new round of whistleblowers, the facts were still pretty much as they were two years ago.

The GOP opened a Congressional investigation of the Biden family to get dirt on Joe. This thread opened with the deflation following the actual legal results of this project—two misdemeanors, one felony, on Joe’s son, and no jail time. No conduit of illegally gotten foreign money flowing through Hunter to Joe. So "Double standard!" and "two tier system of justice!!"

Except as counterweight to the Trump investigations, HB is of no interest all. There’d be no thread in this forum with people arguing about whether he was receiving preferential treatment.

So, in #48, I hit you dead on with my “bullshit,” reminding you of where I found the juxtaposition of Biden and Trump investigations. And the fireworks begin in #59, where you accuse me of “false equivalency” and “fascicle” argument, without explaining the equivalency and accusing me of “ignoring points,” and claiming I’m not being an adult with an ironically unaware flourish of ad homimen. (You can't be engaged in "sophomoric posturing" if you're accusing someone else of that, right?) 

I respond in #68, reminding you that I’d never accuse of you ignoring points without specifying what they were (not an invitation to requote entire paragraphs), and stating you cannot demonstrate any false equivalence. And you still haven't.

In #69 you requote your whole paragraph again, with questions and points you’ve “conceded.” More interestingly, you’ve decided I’ve conflated sentence length in Trump’s case with Biden’s deal; I’d happily agree they are two different things, but that doesn’t mean the CASES aren’t comparable as political events. If they weren’t, no one would be responding to this thread. But instead of remaining on topic, you digress into another flurry of impressions: I’m “building a strawman” and “blowing it in real time” with my “blatant partisanship” and “denial of fact”--by which you mean, I guess, that I, along with many legal experts, don’t agree with your “opinion” about the sweetheart deal. Anyone who disagrees is a “blatant partisan.” Just is.

Alongside this, you’ve decided the thread is only about feeling superior to “Trumptards,” rather than arguing against the larger and still politically dangerous Fox narrative, thus missing the larger and ultimately more important political context. 

[GMDino]

(06-26-2023, 11:26 AM)Dill Wrote: Explain to all of "us"? Like EVERYONE here has missed the larger political force which brought a GOP committee to bear on the "Biden Crime Family" along with you? 

In my post #38, I respond to this statement from your post #36
So, yes, Biden got a sweetheart deal and Trump isn't being persecuted. See, it's easy when everything isn't viewed through a partisan lens.
My response to this linkage of Biden and Trump: Yes, sounds VERY easy, even before we know what "the deal" is.
Viewing the matter through non partisan lenses, how often do charges like those facing Biden bring jail time? 
How long does it usually take to prosecute people who steal government documents and refuse to return them? 

At this point, I’d already read that Biden’s charges rarely bring jail time. So I didn’t see anything especially “sweetheart” about him NOT getting jailtime. And nothing “preferential” in his becoming the object of a Congressional investigation following years of hounding by RWM.
You said Trump was not being persecuted. I agree. But I think anyone who’d snubbed the archives and set about hiding documents and resisting a subpoena would have been in jail last year. So it looks like HE is the one getting preferential treatment, while the RWM is clamoring about Biden’s sweetheart deal and Trump’s “persecution.” This less easy view didn’t register through your “non-partisan lenses.”

In #40 you addressed my question about Trump’s prosecution as follows” I'm not a federal prosecutor, so I have no idea.  Does that have any bearing on Biden getting a sweetheart deal?
Your juxtaposition of Biden and Trump in #36, and your insistence the former was getting a sweetheart deal, reminded of why there was Congressional interest in Biden at all. Trump’s investigation can’t have bearing on Biden’s sweetheart deal if he is not actually getting a sweetheart deal. But it can explain why a GOP Congressional committee is interested in him and the RWM has been hounding him for years.

As the pressure of multiple investigations mounted on Trump, the need on the Right to manufacture a counter-narrative of Biden corruption as counter-weight increased accordingly. E.g., on the day of Trump’s indictment in the documents case, there was during the day desultory coverage thereof on Fox. But in the evening, as the commentators came on, there was an orgy of “breaking news”—not about Trump, but about “whistleblowers” and new revelations about HB and Joe. Indictments were pending on the former. Not much about taxes, but about the flow of millions of dollars from China and Russia to the “Biden Crime Family,” leaving the impression the long-awaited smoking gun of Biden corruption at the VERY top was finally at hand. Again. (Review Luvnit’s posts here to see how effective that was.) Except for a new round of whistleblowers, the facts were still pretty much as they were two years ago.

The GOP opened a Congressional investigation of the Biden family to get dirt on Joe. This thread opened with the deflation following the actual legal results of this project—two misdemeanors, one felony, on Joe’s son, and no jail time. No conduit of illegally gotten foreign money flowing through Hunter to Joe. So "Double standard!" and "two tier system of justice!!"

Except as counterweight to the Trump investigations, HB is of no interest all. There’d be no thread in this forum with people arguing about whether he was receiving preferential treatment.

So, in #48, I hit you dead on with my “bullshit,” reminding you of where I found the juxtaposition of Biden and Trump investigations. And the fireworks begin in #59, where you accuse me of “false equivalency” and “fascicle” argument, without explaining the equivalency and accusing me of “ignoring points,” and claiming I’m not being an adult with an ironically unaware flourish of ad homimen. (You can't be engaged in "sophomoric posturing" if your accusing someone else of that, right?) 


I respond in #68, reminding you that I’d never accuse of you ignoring points without specifying what they were (not an invitation to requote entire paragraphs), and stating you cannot demonstrate any false equivalence.

In #69 you requote your whole paragraph again, with questions and points you’ve “conceded.” More interestingly, you’ve decided I’ve conflated sentence length in Trump’s case with Biden’s deal; I’d happily agree they are two different things, but that doesn’t mean the CASES aren’t comparable as political events. If they weren’t, no one would be responding to this thread. But instead of remaining on topic, you digress into another flurry of impressions: I’m “building a strawman” and “blowing it in real time” with my “blatant partisanship” and “denial of fact”--by which you mean, I guess, that I, along with many legal experts, don’t agree with your “opinion” about the sweetheart deal. Anyone who disagrees is a “blatant partisan.” Just is.

Alongside this, you’ve decided the thread is only about feeling superior to “Trumptards,” rather than arguing against the larger and still politically dangerous Fox narrative, thus missing the larger and ultimately more important political context. 

Dill, you are logically explaining to someone who already "knows" he is right and only want to argue and belittle.  Not worth it.

Hunter had good lawyers, listened and made a good deal for himself.  Just like a lot of other rich , connected people do.  It's not fair to regular folk like us but its not the grand conspiracy they want it to be either.  And if I'm ever investigated for the same charges I'm gonna cite his settlement!

[Dill]

(06-26-2023, 11:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: Dill, you are logically explaining to someone who already "knows" he is right and only want to argue and belittle.  Not worth it.

Hunter had good lawyers, listened and made a good deal for himself.  Just like a lot of other rich , connected people do.  It's not fair to regular folk like us but its not the grand conspiracy they want it to be either.  And if I'm ever investigated for the same charges I'm gonna cite his settlement!

Yes, that's right. But for me this is still really about the larger Fox narrative. 

Can't refute ad hominem, but I can remind people of what's really at stake in debates about the Biden investigation.

It's not about whether well connected white men get sweetheart deals on tax misdemeanors.