[johnforbes]

Assume there was a Vice President who had a son, and that son went along on Air Force 2 on foreign trips, and assume the son had various business interests including sitting on the board of a Ukraine energy company when he had no energy expertise nor command of the local language.

Assume that son had a laptop which he left at a computer shop, did not return to claim, and which the terms of the work order said devolved to ownership of the computer shop for unpaid bills, and assume that laptop could have been a campaign issue because it showed a wide variety of unethical and potentially criminal behavior.

Further assume 51 retired intel "experts" said the laptop was consistent with Russian disinfo, and the mainstream media went along with that in order to help a Democrat politician get past an election, and assume that later every source confirmed the laptop was indeed real and genuine.

Assume polls showed that the laptop, if known to voters before the election to be genuine, could have tilted the election against the Democrats. In other words, downplaying the validity of the laptop on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and in the mainstream media essentially interfered with the election by depriving voters of salient information.

Assume in addition that the laptop had been in custody since December 2019 with no charges brought against the wonderful young chap who owned the laptop, which contained suggestions of illegal drug use and perhaps trading influence for money.

Any ethics problem there?

[Clownkicker]

You know what they say about when you assume things, dimwit.

You make an ass of yourself.

[johnforbes]

Imagine what Clowntroller would be saying if one of Trump's sons had had a laptop loaded with suggestions of unethical behavior and influence-trading...

[Clownkicker]

Imagine what Dishonestjohn would say if he stopped drinking panther urine and pond scum and instead became lucid and honest in his partisan trolling.

[johnforbes]

Mr Forbes does not drink pond scum, or beer.

However, on a sultry afternoon such as this one, he does find it refreshing to indulge in a tall, cool glass of still water.

[Clownkicker]

"Mr Forbes does not drink pond scum, or beer."-johnflubs

Did anyone else notice that johnforbes didn't deny drinking panther urine? Eewwww....

[johnforbes]

He does not deny what he does not deny.

Not denying something does not indicate the presence of same.

QED

[Clownkicker]

Did anyone else notice that johnforbes STILL didn't deny drinking panther urine? Eewwww....

[johnforbes]

Nor did Clowntroller.

But obviously he does not so imbibe, nor does the fabulous Forbes.

[Clownkicker]

But unlike you, I never said I could compare panther urine to beer if I only drank beer.

So there is no need for me to deny something that I never commented on in the first place, is there, dimwit.

[johnforbes]

Yes, there is a legal requirement.

Clowntroller's family name was "Jukes"...

[Clownkicker]

Did anyone else notice that johnforbes STILL didn't deny drinking panther urine? Eewwww....

[johnforbes]

Nonsense.

Everybody knows that, on a hot and humid afternoon, Mr Forbes typically seeks refreshment by downing a tall, cool glass of bleach.

[Clownkicker]

We know, johnny.

You obviously drink bleach to get the taste of the panther urine out of your mouth.

[elklindo69]

Assume there was a Vice President who had a son, and that son went along on Air Force 2 on foreign trips, and assume the son had various business interests including sitting on the board of a Ukraine energy company when he had no energy expertise nor command of the local language.

Assume that son had a laptop which he left at a computer shop, did not return to claim, and which the terms of the work order said devolved to ownership of the computer shop for unpaid bills, and assume that laptop could have been a campaign issue because it showed a wide variety of unethical and potentially criminal behavior.

Further assume 51 retired intel "experts" said the laptop was consistent with Russian disinfo, and the mainstream media went along with that in order to help a Democrat politician get past an election, and assume that later every source confirmed the laptop was indeed real and genuine.

Assume polls showed that the laptop, if known to voters before the election to be genuine, could have tilted the election against the Democrats. In other words, downplaying the validity of the laptop on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and in the mainstream media essentially interfered with the election by depriving voters of salient information.

Assume in addition that the laptop had been in custody since December 2019 with no charges brought against the wonderful young chap who owned the laptop, which contained suggestions of illegal drug use and perhaps trading influence for money.

Any ethics problem there?

Trump was charged with 34 felony counts.

[johnforbes]

Elkin flunked civics, so we all must point out to him the presumption of innocence which is at the core of our Anglo-Saxon common law heritage.