Trump lashes out at Biden family, media after cocaine found at White House

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I am referring to the nonsensical narrative that the owner of the cocaine will likely never be found. Only one possible reason why that would be. And by continually acting to shield the bidens, law enforcement and the media have themselves to blame.

First off, I noticed you're not acknowledging that your claim that fingerprints weren't taken is false? Do you have any use for facts at all apart from twisting them.

Only one possible reason? Really? You gonna take that to a court of law? Is your imagination so limited that you can't possibly think of any other explanations?

[EastBayRay]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Where have they claimed that the won't be able to find the offender?

In the New York post article that I posted.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, EastBayRay said:

In the New York post article that I posted.

Well, then, you shouldn't have any problem finding a quote from that article to support your assertion. Can share it here with other members of ohe forum?

[PremiumLane]

It is like Hunter is the alpha all these conservative clowns wish that they could be

[EastBayRay]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, then, you shouldn't have any problem finding a quote from that article to support your assertion. Can share it here with other members of ohe forum?

I could. Or you can read it in the article.

 

I'm not here to spoon feed the lazy.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, EastBayRay said:

I could. Or you can read it in the article.

 

I'm not here to spoon feed the lazy.

Well, I'm not too lazy to have read the entire article carefully.

Nowhere in the article does it say that  there is a "consistent message that they won’t be able to find the offender".  

In fact, nowhere in the article does it claim  that anyone has categorically claimed that they won't be able to find the offender.

[placeholder]

Just now, EastBayRay said:

Try reading it again. Second from last paragraph so you’ll need to concentrate.

 

you can do it. Suu suu

That doesn't say what you claimed it meant:

"Some officials have cautioned that the culprit is unlikely to be conclusively identified due to the sheer number of people who pass through the area on a regular basis."  does not mean that there's a "consistent message that they won’t be able to find the offender"

[Pink Mist]

A misinformation post whose own link contradicted what the poster wrote has been removed. A personal attack has also been removed.

[John Drake]

A pattern emerges.

 

"That's not my cocaine."

"That's not my laptop."

"That's not my gun."

"That's not my daughter."

[EastBayRay]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Well, I'm not too lazy to have read the entire article carefully.

Nowhere in the article does it say that  there is a "consistent message that they won’t be able to find the offender".  

In fact, nowhere in the article does it claim  that anyone has categorically claimed that they won't be able to find the offender.

Where did I state “categorically claimed”?

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, John Drake said:

A pattern emerges.

 

"That's not my cocaine."

"That's not my laptop."

"That's not my gun."

"That's not my daughter."

Where did you get those quotes from? Or is a a pattern of false accusations on what Hunter was supposed to have said?

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, EastBayRay said:

Where did I state “categorically claimed”?

Your statement that "consistent message that they won’t be able to find the offender".  is categorical. In fact, according to the article some officials said it was unlikely. 

[EastBayRay]

21 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Your statement that "consistent message that they won’t be able to find the offender".  is categorical. In fact, according to the article some officials said it was unlikely. 

I didn’t say the article categorically claimed anything

 

what I claimed is a different story. Yes there has been a consistent message that they won’t find the offender. I stand by that.
 

in fact the same claims are in the Mail article that I linked. Search for the words ‘downplaying the chances’ if it’s too long to read .

 

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by EastBayRay

[amexpat]

1 hour ago, EastBayRay said:

I could. Or you can read it in the article.

 

I'm not here to spoon feed the lazy.

Murdock's NY Post?

Or read Daily Mail, National Inquirer, of watch Faux Noise. 

[billd766]

17 hours ago, proton said:

 

So one of them took the coke in then

Obviously you know this to be correct and have the proof of it.

 

Can you explain why it was found in the visitors area, where the family don't actually go to, or is that too difficult a question for you?

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, EastBayRay said:

I didn’t say the article categorically claimed anything

 

what I claimed is a different story. Yes there has been a consistent message that they won’t find the offender. I stand by that.
 

in fact the same claims are in the Mail article that I linked. Search for the words ‘downplaying the chances’ if it’s too long to read .

 

 

Here's a definition of categorically:

in a way that is unambiguously explicit and direct.

 

You stated that they said they won't find who the culprit was whereas they said the probably wouldn't find the culprit. I see a difference. Apparently, you don't.

 

And you seem to be making the exact same mistake with the Daily Mail article.

downplaying the chances is not the same as saying there's no chance.

 

 

 

[placeholder]

And here's an oddly rational comment from Kayleigh McEnany

 

“For it to be Hunter Biden, he left on Friday, he was at Camp David. There is no way, it is inconceivable to think cocaine could sit for a 72-hour period [at The White House], so I would rule him out at this point.” McEnany, who is a Fox News host, said Thursday on the network’s flagship morning talk program.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4083457-mcenany-breaks-with-trump-no-way-cocaine-at-white-house-is-hunter-bidens/

[EastBayRay]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Here's a definition of categorically:

in a way that is unambiguously explicit and direct.

 

You stated that they said they won't find who the culprit was whereas they said the probably wouldn't find the culprit. I see a difference. Apparently, you don't.

 

And you seem to be making the exact same mistake with the Daily Mail article.

downplaying the chances is not the same as saying there's no chance.

 

 

 

You seem to be confusing what I claimed personally and what I said the article claimed.

 

deliberately, I suspect.

[EastBayRay]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And here's an oddly rational comment from Kayleigh McEnany

 

“For it to be Hunter Biden, he left on Friday, he was at Camp David. There is no way, it is inconceivable to think cocaine could sit for a 72-hour period [at The White House], so I would rule him out at this point.” McEnany, who is a Fox News host, said Thursday on the network’s flagship morning talk program.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4083457-mcenany-breaks-with-trump-no-way-cocaine-at-white-house-is-hunter-bidens/

It’s amusing and telling that the only reason they rule him out is the timeframe.????

 

not because he is clean now or wouldn’t take cocaine into the WH. I guess they want to keep things within the realms of possibility.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, EastBayRay said:

You seem to be confusing what I claimed personally and what I said the article claimed.

 

deliberately, I suspect.

You sent me to those articles to back up your claim. In fact, the mods eliminated one, along with your insult, precisely because the article it linked to didn't back up your claims. So, on the one hand, you cite articles to back up what you claim, but on the other, you claim that just because you cited those articles, that doesn't mean that they back up your claims. It is to laugh.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, EastBayRay said:

It’s amusing and telling that the only reason they rule him out is the timeframe.????

 

not because he is clean now or wouldn’t take cocaine into the WH. I guess they want to keep things within the realms of possibility.

Or, to put it another way, it's amusing and telling that the only reason they rule him out is because being in 2 places at once is impossible. Except maybe in quantum theory.

 

But I do agree with you that there is something scandalous about them wanting "to keep things within the realm of possibility." Clearly, a deeply corrupt investigation would want to investigate only "things within the realms of possibility." Why don't they won't to investigate things outside of the realm of possibility? What we have here is another case for James Comer, investigator of fantasies, to look into.

Edited July 7, 2023 by placeholder

[EastBayRay]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You sent me to those articles to back up your claim. In fact, the mods eliminated one, along with your insult, precisely because the article it linked to didn't back up your claims. So, on the one hand, you cite articles to back up what you claim, but on the other, you claim that just because you cited those articles, that doesn't mean that they back up your claims. It is to laugh.

No. The articles backed up what I claimed. 
 

not what you claimed I claimed.

 

big difference 

[placeholder]

Just now, EastBayRay said:

No. The articles backed up what I claimed. 
 

not what you claimed I claimed.

 

big difference 

Please. The mods already deleted your claim foir one article on the grounds that it didn't back up what you claimed. The articles claimed that certain officials claimed it was probable that they wouldn't find the culprit. You claimed that they made that claim absolutely without qualification. If not, what they said wouldn't back up your claim that was not qualified with any mention of probability.

[Hanaguma]

9 minutes ago, EastBayRay said:

It’s amusing and telling that the only reason they rule him out is the timeframe.????

 

not because he is clean now or wouldn’t take cocaine into the WH. I guess they want to keep things within the realms of possibility.

That is part of the narrative. The other part is "follow the bouncing dime bag".  The location of the discovery has shifted at least 3 times since the story broke.  Each time to a more publicly accessable (and deniable) location.  Let's see, what is more likely- the guy with the coke habit dropped it, or a random grade 5 teacher leading her school group had it fall from her pocket.

 

I mean, the White House won't even confirm that it ISN'T Hunter's or Joe's.   What a fiasco. I mean, how hard would it be to answer, "No, of course it doesn't belong to anyone in the First Family. We will investigate tirelessly to find out who desecrated America's House".

[EastBayRay]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Or, to put it another way, it's amusing and telling that the only reason they rule him out is because being in 2 places at once is impossible. Except maybe in quantum theory.

 

But I do agree with you that there is something scandalous about them wanting "to keep things within the realm of possibility." Clearly, a deeply corrupt investigation would want to investigate only "things within the realms of possibility." Why don't they won't to investigate things outside of the realm of possibility? What we have here is another case for James Comer, investigator of fantasies, to look into.

Actually they rule him out on the basis that it couldn’t have stayed there 72 hours without being found. Maybe you misunderstood quantum theory?

 

given that it was able to come in undetected I see no reason that it could not be missed once it had passed the security checks. It’s like at the airport, nobody searches your luggage once you’ve boarded the plane no matter how long the flight.

 

Of course nobody is silly enough to claim that he just wouldn’t do such a thing. That would be ridiculous given his history.

[EastBayRay]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please. The mods already deleted your claim foir one article on the grounds that it didn't back up what you claimed. The articles claimed that certain officials claimed it was probable that they wouldn't find the culprit. You claimed that they made that claim absolutely without qualification. If not, what they said wouldn't back up your claim that was not qualified with any mention of probability.

Where did I claim they made the claim absolutely without qualification?

[EastBayRay]

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

Does anyone think that the republicans could have planted the cocain (easy to do) to give them something to talk about? 

No I don’t think anyone seriously believes that.

[proton]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Obviously you know this to be correct and have the proof of it.

 

Can you explain why it was found in the visitors area, where the family don't actually go to, or is that too difficult a question for you?

As they have done prints and DNA tests and they have CC tv footage we can expect the result of their enquiries to be 'inconclusive' ???? If the person concerned had raped somebody excusers on here would be blaming the woman! 

[EastBayRay]

39 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please. The mods already deleted your claim foir one article on the grounds that it didn't back up what you claimed. The articles claimed that certain officials claimed it was probable that they wouldn't find the culprit. You claimed that they made that claim absolutely without qualification. If not, what they said wouldn't back up your claim that was not qualified with any mention of probability.

I said it was a consistent message. Not made absolutely without qualification those are your words not mine.

 

here is another one. it’s in the headline this time so you should be able to find it

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/05/white-house-cocaine-culprit-unlikely-to-be-found-law-enforcement-official-00104742

 

thats 3 articles saying the same thing. I am sure you know the meaning of consistent.

 

PS I i believe discussing the mods decisions is against forum rules so I shall refrain as you should in future 

 

 

[candide]

40 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

That is part of the narrative. The other part is "follow the bouncing dime bag".  The location of the discovery has shifted at least 3 times since the story broke.  Each time to a more publicly accessable (and deniable) location.  Let's see, what is more likely- the guy with the coke habit dropped it, or a random grade 5 teacher leading her school group had it fall from her pocket.

 

I mean, the White House won't even confirm that it ISN'T Hunter's or Joe's.   What a fiasco. I mean, how hard would it be to answer, "No, of course it doesn't belong to anyone in the First Family. We will investigate tirelessly to find out who desecrated America's House".

Why should they take seriously Trump's B.S. claim?