ADVERTISEMENT

So who is the next VP?

That's not a denial.
A denial of what?
I've made no comment on the content of the letter itself, thus you have no justification to assume my position on it. But assuming things absent evidence seems par for the course for you.
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.

That is, unless you are still claiming to be a different poster, which I am pretty sure is another lie of yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerHuff3
A denial of what?
You didn't deny that you use speculation, rather than evidence, to come to your conclusion when evidence doesn't support you.
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.

That is, unless you are still claiming to be a different poster, which I am pretty sure is another lie of yours.
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.
 
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 ?

That user name no longer pops up when linking it in a message, so that poster must have deleted it - as if he were ashamed of something, like being busted for lying or ridiculing Gold Star families.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerHuff3
Since HoFan was a proven liar, what evidence can you provide that you are not lying?
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.
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.
So are you saying this is your evidence that I am hoosierfanJM? If so, your standards of evidence are incredibly low.
 
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.

Nobody on this forum consistently babbled about "evidence" in the past as much as HoFan, who suddenly stopped, and then you, under a new name pretending to be a Purdue fan, suddenly started babbling about evidence in the same pompous way.

From HoFan on Feb 2: "No, this is not the entirety of what the jury convicted on. You asked for the publicly available evidence from the case. That was it for publicly available; it's a tiny piece of the evidence.

The point being made by many is that the jury heard all of the evidence and ruled for the plaintiff."

"JBoiler" throughout this thread, babbling about 'evidence' at least a dozen times.

The evidence shows you dropped your former HoFan name out of shame for being busted lying and ridiculing Gold Star families.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boiler Buck
The evidence shows you dropped your former HoFan name out of shame for being busted lying and ridiculing Gold Star families.
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."

But, I'm curious, let's say you were able to demonstrate that I am this other poster, would that make you justified in believing, based on Morrell's testimony, that Blinken asked him to write a letter? Because that's specifically what you said in the very first post I responded to, before you decided to deflect from that discussion to my identity:

"If it were not true, the former CIA director was lying in his sworn testimony:

'Morrell made the confession in private sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, saying he acted after speaking to Antony Blinken, then part of the Biden campaign and now secretary of state, because he wanted Joe Biden to "win the election.'"
 
Last edited:
Rice > Scott
Condi should have been the first black president. Or VP.

But she was too nice of a person to win against the Clinton Gangsters and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media.
Same with nice guys like Mitt and McCain.


Takes a sucker-punching bar brawler like Trump to overcome the DNC/Big Tech/MSM machine, unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonefish1
Ah, so you don't care about evidence, and would rather invent your own, speculative version of events. Ok, that now TRULY answers my initial question. Took a while to get there, but thanks for your candor.
He learned well the lessons of the "bipartisan" J6 committee.
 
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."

But, I'm curious, let's say you were able to demonstrate that I am this other poster, would that make you justified in believing, based on Morrell's testimony, that Blinken asked him to write a letter? Because that's specifically what you said in the very first post I responded to, before you decided to deflect from that discussion to my identity:

"If it were not true, the former CIA director was lying in his sworn testimony:

'Morrell made the confession in private sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, saying he acted after speaking to Antony Blinken, then part of the Biden campaign and now secretary of state, because he wanted Joe Biden to "win the election.'"
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.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dni-ratcliffe-hunter-biden-emails-134549198.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dni-ratcliffe-hunter-biden-emails-134549198.html
That same day for some reason 50 plus former officials w/o access out of the goodness of their heart organically came up with a letter saying it most likely was. They just all said independently “I have to do this!” All the left wing news sources amplified the letter. Interviewed signatures, and ignored DIA’s testimony

A couple days later Biden referenced the letter in his debate to kill the issue (again Russia Russia Russia) and of course all the big tech companies (who support Biden and some people eventually will work for Biden) suppress the story and deplatform anybody even forwarding the NYP reporting. Doing it on the basis of this letter. Despite the fact that the DIA (again) in sworn testimony said there was no evidence. And off course we know from numerous reports later Big Tech colluded with the Biden campaign and continued into the administration (especially w/Covid).

Can you think of another event in history where a news story was completely stopped based upon the opinion of third party individuals w/o access to the data/source and where the government official testifies the fact is the other?

All just one big co-inky-dink.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riveting-
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.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dni-ratcliffe-hunter-biden-emails-134549198.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dni-ratcliffe-hunter-biden-emails-134549198.html
That same day for some reason 50 plus former officials w/o access out of the goodness of their heart organically came up with a letter saying it most likely was. They just all said independently “I have to do this!” All the left wing news sources amplified the letter. Interviewed signatures, and ignored DIA’s testimony

A couple days later Biden referenced the letter in his debate to kill the issue (again Russia Russia Russia) and of course all the big tech companies (who support Biden and some people eventually will work for Biden) suppress the story and deplatform anybody even forwarding the NYP reporting. Doing it on the basis of this letter. Despite the fact that the DIA (again) in sworn testimony said there was no evidence. And off course we know from numerous reports later Big Tech colluded with the Biden campaign and continued into the administration (especially w/Covid).

Can you think of another event in history where a news story was completely stopped based upon the opinion of third party individuals w/o access to the data/source and where the government official testifies the fact is the other?

All just one big co-inky-dink.
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.
 
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.

https://wlos.com/news/nation-world/...r-biden-laptop-story-ex-cia-director-confirms.

But if it wasn’t coordinated then why didn’t the one person who knew it was Hunter’s laptop just not say, “hey, the letter is wrong.” You know who that was? Joe Biden who could and probably asked his housemate and son , “Hey, was that your laptop?” But he didn’t fess up and instead used the letter as rehearsed in the debate. That was about as phony as phony gets.
 
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

HoosierFanJM:

Committee question to Mr. Morell: “Prior to [Mr. Blinken’s] call, you—you did not have any intent to write this statement?”

Mr. Morell: “I did not.”

 
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.

And it’s disingenuous to not understand that Blinken can have a call and describe the situation and infer w/o “asking” what the campaign wants for the debate. And amazingly what the campaign wanted happened and so was a coordinated release to the WaPo and Politico and Biden had the line for the debate.
 
HoosierFanJM:

Committee question to Mr. Morell: “Prior to [Mr. Blinken’s] call, you—you did not have any intent to write this statement?”

Mr. Morell: “I did not.”

Riveting:

Committee question to Mr. Morrell: "When he called you, did he direct, suggest, or insinuate in any way that you should write a letter or statement on this topic?"

Mr. Morrell: "My memory is that he did not, right. My memory is that he asked me what I thought."

Committee: "Okay. It wasn't: the campaign could use some help on this; could you -- "

Mr. Morrell: "He did not say that."

Committee: "-- cook up something that we could use?"

Mr. Morrell: "It's not my memory that he said that."

 
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.

And it’s disingenuous to not understand that Blinken can have a call and describe the situation and infer w/o “asking” what the campaign wants for the debate. And amazingly what the campaign wanted happened and so was a coordinated release to the WaPo and Politico and Biden had the line for the debate.
I didn't say it they were opposite, I said they were different as supported by my counter example.

I didn't say Blinken didn't infer, either. I've merely stated that Morrell's testimony does not say that Blinken asked, because Riveting kept using Morrell's testimony and stating that Morrell "admitted" that Blinken asked. It simply doesn't say that.

Blinken might have asked directly or implied something to Morrell, but Morrell's testimony doesn't indicate that he did. That's all I've been saying this entire time. The only evidence that DOES exist that Blinken asked for a letter is that the letter exists at all. But, that evidence is circumstantial, because the letter would exist if were the case the Blinken asked for it and it would also exist if it were the case that Morrell cooked up the idea himself. I'm not aware of any other evidence that exists that we could use to determine which is true.
 
I'm thinking the gov of Virginia, Youngkin.
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.
 
it and it would also exist if it were the case that Morrell cooked up the idea himself. I'm not aware of any other evidence that exists that we could use to determine which is true.
HoFan,

Blinkers could take a brief period of time off from serving the mil-industrial establishment and betraying Israel to testify, although he would probably say, "It's not my memory that I said that."
 
Last edited:
HoFan,

Blinkers could take a brief period of time off from serving the mil-industrial establishment and betraying Israel to testify, although he would probably say, "It's not my memory that I said that."
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?
 
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.

But here are some related questions that he could answer to clear his name (if that is possible after his proven incompetence as SoS).

1. Was he aware of Bobulinski's statements and his emails matching those sent by Hunter from the laptop?

2. Was he aware that DNI John Ratcliffe stated the laptop "is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign" ... "Let me be clear: The intelligence community doesn't believe that, because there is no intelligence that supports that."

3. Assuming he wasn't so incompetent as to not be aware of both 1 and 2, did he understand that the letter was deliberately misleading to the advantage of the Biden campaign he was working for?

4. Did he know Biden was blatantly lying about the letter itself in the debate, extending the letter's "appearance of " to "it is a Russian plant" "There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. Five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage."

Blinkers doesn't have to wait to be asked to testify. He could just answer these questions himself, clearing his name so our allies could have at least a small measure of trust him instead of recognizing him for the lying, incompetent slimeball that he is.
 
No, not if that were the only question they asked him.

But here are some related questions that he could answer to clear his name (if that is possible after his proven incompetence as SoS).

1. Was he aware of Bobulinski's statements and his emails matching those sent by Hunter from the laptop?

2. Was he aware that DNI John Ratcliffe stated the laptop "is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign" ... "Let me be clear: The intelligence community doesn't believe that, because there is no intelligence that supports that."

3. Assuming he wasn't so incompetent as to not be aware of both 1 and 2, did he understand that the letter was deliberately misleading to the advantage of the Biden campaign he was working for?

4. Did he know Biden was blatantly lying about the letter itself in the debate, extending the letter's "appearance of " to "it is a Russian plant" "There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. Five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage."

Blinkers doesn't have to wait to be asked to testify. He could just answer these questions himself, clearing his name so our allies could have at least a small measure of trust him instead of recognizing him for the lying, incompetent slimeball that he is.
If he's not asked to testify, in what format would you suggest Blinken answer these questions?
 
Then we will wonder why he didn't explain his actions earlier.
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.

I grow weary of this topic, so I'd like to hopefully wrap things up with just one question:

Are you willing to acknowledge that you were incorrect in your statements that Morrell, in his testimony, admitted that Blinken orchestrated the letter?
 
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.

I grow weary of this topic, so I'd like to hopefully wrap things up with just one question:
HoFanJM never used to grow weary of a topic, being able to demonstrate his ignorance indefinitely.
Are you willing to acknowledge that you were incorrect in your statements that Morrell, in his testimony, admitted that Blinken orchestrated the letter?
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.
 
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.
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.
HoFanJM never used to grow weary of a topic, being able to demonstrate his ignorance indefinitely.
Hmmm, so maybe I was telling the truth earlier after all.
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.
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.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT