A denial of what?
Wrong. There is ample evidence and justification from your numerous prior posts as HoFanJM that you will lie to support an argument, and that you are not very bright when it comes to discussions about politics.
You didn't deny that you use speculation, rather than evidence, to come to your conclusion when evidence doesn't support you.
You also have no evidence that I am not who I say I am, more speculation in the absence of evidence on your part. At least you're consistent.
Are you denying you posted previously on this forum as @HoosierfanJM ?
Since HoFan was a proven liar, what evidence can you provide that you are not lying?
Relevant to that disgusting, pompous, lying poster who called himself hoosierfanJM - and who vanished about the time another poster with the same pompous style showed up.
I've already stated that I cannot provide such evidence (just as you cannot provide evidence that you are not, for instance, Kim Jong Un), which is why I have ignored every previous instance in which you referred to me by the other poster's name after initially stating that I am not them.
So are you saying this is your evidence that I am hoosierfanJM? If so, your standards of evidence are incredibly low.
That's because the intelligence standards of your posts are incredibly low.
Unfortunately, it doesn't, and you have only coincidence to support your assertion. Again, a poor standard of evidence on your part, but that tracks with your reasoning for Blinken asking Morrell to write the letter being, effectively, "thing A happened and then thing B happened, therefore thing A caused thing B."
Condi should have been the first black president. Or VP.
So on October 19th DIA Ratcliffe. A man who had access to the laptop stated in sworn testimony the laptop and emails was not Russian disinformation.
None of this has anything to do with Blinken's actions, and until we can come to some kind of mutual understanding of what Morrell's testimony actually said regarding Blinken's involvement, I see no point in moving forward. The entire reason I joined the discussion was because of Riveting's claim that the Biden campaign orchestrated the whole thing while using Morrell's testimony as the evidence of said claim. The testimony does not support such a claim (it, in fact, refutes it), but since we can't seem to agree on standards of evidence, we're probably at an impasse.
I don’t know what you are arguing or what is being debated but the transcripts of the committee hearing show Morrell stated Blinken triggered the letter. And the intent was to help the campaign. Next you have several of the signees go and work for the Admistration for a quid-pro-quo.
I agree with both of these statements. But the testimony does NOT say that Blinken asked Morrell to take any actions. It says the opposite. "Triggered" and "asked for" are two different things -- for instance, Riveting's post earlier in this thread "triggered" me to respond, but he did not ask me to respond. And wanting to help the campaign is different than acting at the campaign's request.
In what world is “Triggered” the opposite of “asked for.” And Morrell IIRC didn’t say he didn’t ask, he said “my memory is that he didn’t ask.” That’s a legal tactic to prevent perjury via the defense of “I misremembered.” If he didn’t ask, say directly “Blinken did not and never asked me for the letter.” But they knew communication with the other signees, and worse people who didn’t sign could tie to the discussion so “triggered” is defensible.
Riveting:
www.mediaite.com
I didn't say it they were opposite, I said they were different as supported by my counter example.
Maybe, he’d be in the top 5. If he wants to try to flip a state he’d make sense, one thing is for sure, you’re seeing those that want it at the courthouse, not sure that Youngkin has been there? Vivek is sure trying to get that spot it seems.
HoFan,
Which would also provide nothing that we could use to determine what's true, so what would be the point? Even if he were to say, more explicitly, "I didn't ask Morrell to do anything," would you believe him?
No, not if that were the only question they asked him.
If he's not asked to testify, in what format would you suggest Blinken answer these questions?
I think that assumes that we are owed an explanation, But, that's maybe a different conversation, because we might then argue about whether we're owed an explanation of the actions that ANY campaign may or may not have made to take advantage of something that either makes them look better or their opponent look worse, but with only dubious connection to truth, but that were not illegal.
Citizens are owed such an explanation whenever top gov officials, former or active, collaborate to help a candidate lie to the citizens in a coverup.
HoFanJM never used to grow weary of a topic, being able to demonstrate his ignorance indefinitely.
I didn't say he admitted it, but that he said Blinkers orchestrated the letter. Morrell did not say that, so my statement was incorrect -- although the sequence of events was such that Occam's Razor makes it likely that is what happened.
To be fair, Biden's statement of "there's a letter that says a thing" wasn't actually a lie, it was a true statement. But, certainly could be considered a lie of omission given he avoided addressing the laptop itself. Is it not a problem when people who AREN'T former government officials collaborate to help a candidate lie to the citizens? Or if they lie on behalf of said candidate? Because that seems to happen in lots of campaigns, too. I'm not sure it's any worse if the people are former government or not. Just food for thought.
Hmmm, so maybe I was telling the truth earlier after all.
Fair enough. This I can probably agree with, whether it was Blinken, specifically, or another member of the Biden campaign. But, I don't have sufficient evidence to come to a firm conclusion on that either way.
Bump to show the laptop testimony is breaking news to you and other TDS-impaired libs.
