Thievery, most foul?
-
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....
-
@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....
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 13:51 last edited by@Loki said in Thievery, most foul?:
t’s so obvious that everyone asked where are the copies and just show them.
One blogger has posted that a "very reliable source" told him that there is another copy.
We'll see.
-
@Loki said in Thievery, most foul?:
t’s so obvious that everyone asked where are the copies and just show them.
One blogger has posted that a "very reliable source" told him that there is another copy.
We'll see.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 14:25 last edited by@George-K said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Loki said in Thievery, most foul?:
t’s so obvious that everyone asked where are the copies and just show them.
One blogger has posted that a "very reliable source" told him that there is another copy.
We'll see.
How is it possible there is not another copy? This is like a shaggy dog story. No way no how there wouldn’t be another copy. This story is a joke as presented.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 14:28 last edited by
I watched this last night.
I don't think he ever implied there was no copy.
Is he saying there is no copy?
The story is that the package was stolen. And the theft may have been done to disrupt a story, not to kill the story.
I can't imagine there is no copy. Did someone imagine that?
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 14:36 last edited by
Basically, that video indicates a conspiracy theory in order to explain why Tucker can't produce evidence of a conspiracy theory.
I'm guessing there's some kind of conspiracy going on here.
-
I watched this last night.
I don't think he ever implied there was no copy.
Is he saying there is no copy?
The story is that the package was stolen. And the theft may have been done to disrupt a story, not to kill the story.
I can't imagine there is no copy. Did someone imagine that?
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 15:20 last edited by@Copper said in Thievery, most foul?:
I watched this last night.
I don't think he ever implied there was no copy.
Is he saying there is no copy?
The story is that the package was stolen. And the theft may have been done to disrupt a story, not to kill the story.
I can't imagine there is no copy. Did someone imagine that?
If it is so important why hasn’t a copy been released? Are we going to wait until after next Tuesday or does somebody think that waiting a day or two is better to drop the bomb for changing people’s votes?
-
@Copper said in Thievery, most foul?:
I watched this last night.
I don't think he ever implied there was no copy.
Is he saying there is no copy?
The story is that the package was stolen. And the theft may have been done to disrupt a story, not to kill the story.
I can't imagine there is no copy. Did someone imagine that?
If it is so important why hasn’t a copy been released? Are we going to wait until after next Tuesday or does somebody think that waiting a day or two is better to drop the bomb for changing people’s votes?
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 15:38 last edited by@Loki said in Thievery, most foul?:
If it is so important why hasn’t a copy been released? Are we going to wait until after next Tuesday or does somebody think that waiting a day or two is better to drop the bomb for changing people’s votes?
Journalism at it's finest.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 15:56 last edited by
I think you guys might still be missing the point.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 15:57 last edited by
It is not reasonable to believe that Biden knew nothing about his son's dealings and never discussed it. I'm not sure the 'proof' means anything.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 16:38 last edited by
Carlson said that "we showed the shipper pictures of what we had sent so they would know what to look for."
So, yeah, there are copies, presumably.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 16:45 last edited by
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 17:07 last edited by
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 17:16 last edited by
@George-K said in Thievery, most foul?:
Package found:
Tucker’s move. Now he has to show what was in it. So either it’s an embarrassment or it is part of some conspiracy to force the MSM to cover it.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 17:18 last edited by
If it is important he needs to put it out there right now before more people vote. If he just uses it to draw ratings tonight I will likely disregard it
-
@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, 17:20 last edited by@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?
It was only photocopies that were sent. They still have the documents.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 18:36 last edited by
A story about a missing document is a nothing burger compared to the documents themselves. This is comical at this moment. Let’s see the document or go hide somewhere.
