Thievery, most foul?
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 10:59 last edited by
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 11:05 last edited by
Seems like to me a ratings story.
No one deals really just in the hardcopies anymore. You have electronic version or If this is really that big, you make copies. I wouldn’t think that you would mail off the only “explosive evidence“ you have with no back up. If it were such a big deal and you had no backup, you put a guy on a plane to hand carry.
-
Seems like to me a ratings story.
No one deals really just in the hardcopies anymore. You have electronic version or If this is really that big, you make copies. I wouldn’t think that you would mail off the only “explosive evidence“ you have with no back up. If it were such a big deal and you had no backup, you put a guy on a plane to hand carry.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:13 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Thievery, most foul?:
Seems like to me a ratings story.
No one deals really just in the hardcopies anymore. You have electronic version or If this is really that big, you make copies. I wouldn’t think that you would mail off the only “explosive evidence“ you have with no back up. If it were such a big deal and you had no backup, you put a guy on a plane to hand carry.
I think everyone is asking your question as well as what we’re the documents of? Tucker has to reveal something now or he just looks silly.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:18 last edited by
The pro-Trump camp tried the WSJ and the WSJ passed.
They probably wish there is still an Assagne led WikiLeaks to distribute these “raw data” now, that would still give them more credibility than they making the data available themselves. -
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:26 last edited by
Sounds like a right load of old bullshit to me.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:27 last edited by
Oh, I think the story has legs now. I don't know if Biden did anything illegal or not.
Maybe that will be left up to the Special Prosecutor.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:29 last edited by
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
-
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:30 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
Hopefully he has photocopies.
Wouldn't that be fun?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
Hopefully he has photocopies.
Wouldn't that be fun?
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:31 last edited by Doctor Phibes@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
Hopefully he has photocopies.
Wouldn't that be fun?
If he doesn't, then he's basically shown to be lying.
The idea that this all comes to pass days before the election stretches the bounds of credibility.
-
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
Hopefully he has photocopies.
Wouldn't that be fun?
If he doesn't, then he's basically shown to be lying.
The idea that this all comes to pass days before the election stretches the bounds of credibility.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:34 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
Hopefully he has photocopies.
Wouldn't that be fun?
If he doesn't, then he's basically shown to be lying.
Wouldn't say that. What can be proved with certainty, is that the contents of the package were stolen somewhere within the transporting organization.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
Hopefully he has photocopies.
Wouldn't that be fun?
If he doesn't, then he's basically shown to be lying.
Wouldn't say that. What can be proved with certainty, is that the contents of the package were stolen somewhere within the transporting organization.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:37 last edited by@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
Hopefully he has photocopies.
Wouldn't that be fun?
If he doesn't, then he's basically shown to be lying.
Wouldn't say that. What can be proved with certainty, is that the contents of the package were stolen somewhere within the transporting organization.
Right, nobody made a copy, then they mailed the originals to Tucker, they told somebody what was in it, and he stole them.
Yeah, that sounds totally believable.
-
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
Hopefully he has photocopies.
Wouldn't that be fun?
If he doesn't, then he's basically shown to be lying.
Wouldn't say that. What can be proved with certainty, is that the contents of the package were stolen somewhere within the transporting organization.
Right, nobody made a copy, then they mailed the originals to Tucker, they told somebody what was in it, and he stole them.
Yeah, that sounds totally believable.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:40 last edited by Jolly@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
Hopefully he has photocopies.
Wouldn't that be fun?
If he doesn't, then he's basically shown to be lying.
Wouldn't say that. What can be proved with certainty, is that the contents of the package were stolen somewhere within the transporting organization.
Right, nobody made a copy, then they mailed the originals to Tucker, they told somebody what was in it, and he stole them.
Yeah, that sounds totally believable.
Why would Tucker lie? It's not anything He hasn't already said, just more proof of the same.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
Hopefully he has photocopies.
Wouldn't that be fun?
If he doesn't, then he's basically shown to be lying.
Wouldn't say that. What can be proved with certainty, is that the contents of the package were stolen somewhere within the transporting organization.
Right, nobody made a copy, then they mailed the originals to Tucker, they told somebody what was in it, and he stole them.
Yeah, that sounds totally believable.
Why would Tucker lie? It's not anything He hasn't already said, just more proof of the same.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:45 last edited by@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
Why would Tucker lie? It's not anything He hasn't already said, just more proof of the same.
Unless he has actual documents, it's not proof of anything. That's the point. Saying you have proof of something, but that your contact mailed the originals, didn't make a copy, and then they were stolen in transit, is basically saying 'I think you'll believe anything'.
If it's true, he'll be able to the produce copies of the documents. If he can't produce the documents, it's not true. It's that simple.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 13:04 last edited by
I find it impossible to believe that, if it were so damning, there are not other copies.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 13:14 last edited by
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 13:15 last edited by
@George-K said in Thievery, most foul?:
I find it impossible to believe that, if it were so damning, there are not other copies.
Exactly. This story doesn’t pass the giggle test.
-
@George-K said in Thievery, most foul?:
I find it impossible to believe that, if it were so damning, there are not other copies.
Exactly. This story doesn’t pass the giggle test.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 13:17 last edited by@Loki said in Thievery, most foul?:
@George-K said in Thievery, most foul?:
I find it impossible to believe that, if it were so damning, there are not other copies.
Exactly. This story doesn’t pass the giggle test.
It also completely undermines Tucker Carlson's credibility if he can't produce the documents.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 13:27 last edited by
His dog ate his evidence.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
The bullshit was Tucker's mysteriously disappearing letter. He hasn't looked that silly since he dumped the bow-tie.
Hopefully he has photocopies.
Wouldn't that be fun?
If he doesn't, then he's basically shown to be lying.
Wouldn't say that. What can be proved with certainty, is that the contents of the package were stolen somewhere within the transporting organization.
Right, nobody made a copy, then they mailed the originals to Tucker, they told somebody what was in it, and he stole them.
Yeah, that sounds totally believable.
Why would Tucker lie? It's not anything He hasn't already said, just more proof of the same.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 13:35 last edited by@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
Why would Tucker lie?
Why do the rest of the MSM lie?
If this article was by CNN, and about documents incriminating Trump, would you believe them?
-
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
Why would Tucker lie?
Why do the rest of the MSM lie?
If this article was by CNN, and about documents incriminating Trump, would you believe them?
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 13:40 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
Why would Tucker lie?
Why do the rest of the MSM lie?
If this article was by CNN, and about documents incriminating Trump, would you believe them?
It’s so obvious that everyone asked where are the copies and just show them. The fact that Tucker doesn’t say anything about that undercuts everything. We are all stuck with awaiting 5he answer to that question. There is nowhere to go.
Buehler....
