• jimbolauski@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I asked first, for a source, the one you provided was shit and I already explained why.

    Unless you have another, I must conclude your original statement was made without proper citation, and was therefore invalid and not even worth going further.

    I did provide another source, Hunter himself who, under oath, confirmed those emails are real. You really need to take a little time to read people’s replies and understand them. It’s ok if you need to reread everything some people need extra time to understand everything.

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        HAHAHAHA you still don’t get it.

        None of what you provided, even Hunter’s transcripts, implicates Joe in anything. You have yet to directly address this, meaning there’s nothing for me to respond to.

        Your back to this lie, I never claimed Joe was implicated by the emails. In my very first response I said there was no evidence that he was involved. I have no idea what mental defect you posses that causes you to be unable to understand this.

        Once again, Hunter is not relevant to anything political or conservative in any way, so there’s no point in saying anymore on him.

        If that’s true then why do you keep responding? Why were you so triggered by me saying hunters emails had more than drug and dick picks?

          • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            This you?

            “Yes the laptop does not contain communication between Hunter and Joe discussing corrupt deals. It does contain details of Hunter making corrupt deals that Hunter claims Joe was party to.”

            Are you agreeing that I never claimed that Joe was implicated by the emails? I just want to make sure you’re not confused again.

            I’m not asking you to prove this, I’m asking what the point is of even giving this story attention if Joe isn’t complicit.

            I’ll answer your question with a question. Why are you giving this story attention if Joe isn’t complicit?

            why you believe there are “good” white supremacists

            That is an outright lie I never made that claim. You had ample opportunities to provide the quote but you never did.

            your M.O. seems to just be to insult the other person and hyperfixate on the wrong aspect of a discussion while simultaneously being pretty fuckin rude to anyone that doesn’t give you a pass.

            Did you ever think it might be because you make false claims about me that I’m rude to you?