Dissident billionaire makes explosive revelations about China’s strategy vs Trump

Maybe It’s just a professional bias on my part, my dear Gerardo, but your persistent attacks on the Rules of Evidence are bordering childishness, sorry.

How on earth does Guo the dissident Chinese billionaire (or Chinese double agent, according to some of your other sources, not the Free Beacon) being accused by Roger Stone of violating US election laws prove –or even make it hard to believe- that he can never be (or have been) a Trump crony? Try that before a court of law, at least before they are all taken over by our tremendous president’s appointees.

Besides the fact that I have never said or claimed they were (or even are) cronies.

I even posted a link that says Trump was ready to deport Guo at the behest of his “frienemy” Xi, and “decided” not to deport him only when he learned Guo was a fee-paying member of Mar-a-Loco. But by now we all should know how fickle minded the stable genius is, and how artfully his positions can change in the middle of his constant and always brilliant negotiating activity.

At first glance I might have thought that Roger Stone, whose expertise in violating US election laws is highly regarded, should know what he was talking about (you know, as if he were playing the role of what our Rules of Evidence call an expert witness); but didn’t he recant those accusations?

Wouldn’t you want to have better sources than Guo, Roger, and such, in advancing your investigative journalism about US-China trade relations?

One last question, my good friend: what exactly do you mean by “us” when you say “what should be important to us is…”???

What is important to me is how much the world has changed over the past three years or so. I never thought I would get to see so many people in the world rooting for China -or any other country, for that matter- who took it upon itself to try to save the world from the United States (meaning you know who, of course...).

Con el cordial y fraternal abrazo de SIEMPRE!

What persistent attacks on the Rules of Evidence? :huh:

I wonder ...

I'm totally clueless.

On the other hand, really José Manuel!!!, does it makes sense to you that the Trump electoral campaigners would attack a billionaire supporter? Of course not, because he wasn't a supporter until the political stage changed.

Furthermore, I have been clear on how Guo has played both sides, one after the other, in order to prevent extradition. Therefore, he became a member of Mar-a-Lago hoping to get closer to Trump.

Now, regarding the "Rules of Evidence", asserting that Trump "decided" not to deport him after he knew of his membership in the Club, is pure speculation. How would you or any journalist know that? Did Trump confide to anyone about such a petty decision? It would be logical to believe that such a membership had very little weight in Trump's decision under the circumstances. On the contrary, it is more reasonable to think that his decision was based on the damage Guo was (and is) causing to high echelon Chinese officials with his testimony.

However, this last paragraph is pure speculation. How can we prove it either way?

What is important to us is the way Guo is exposing corruption among high-ranking Chinese officials. What is important to us as well is to reveal the many shady deals and businesses involving very important American politicians in favor of China, as mentioned in the first post I published in this debate.

If I could find the time in the following days or weeks, I'll further investigate the allegations contained in "Secret Empires", by Peter Schweizer, about so many important American politicians putting their greed above their country's interests. If not, let us hope that others do so in depth and impartially. It is extremely important to unmask them if what Schweizer reveals is true.

Let me give you some clues, then, my dear Gerardo:

-. “quotations that have not been challenged from any other media” should be given credit at least until “they have been challenged from any other media…”, or proven truthful when they are repeated by other media…

-. what your side says in court should be believed while your opponent’s sayings are sheer speculation, when the statements are basically of the same nature.

EXAMPLE:

“According to the Wall Street Journal, President Trump received a letter from the Chinese government hand-delivered by Steve Wynn, a Las Vegas tycoon with business interests in Macau, China. The government letter asked Trump for assistance with getting Mr. Guo deported. Trump expressed interest in helping the Chinese government, but senior officials found ways to not allow it to happen. …”

“… During a White House briefing in the Oval Office, the President was set to discuss separate issues related to China, Trump brought up the letter that had been handed to him by Steve Wynn. Trump reportedly said that he knew of at least one “Chinese criminal” that America needed to deport immediately. "Where's that letter Steve brought?” “We need to get this criminal out of the country.”

“According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump’s aides managed to convince him to change his decision to have Mr. Guo deported by letting the president know Guo was a paying member of his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.”…

These three paragraphs, taken from this link I posted
www.metro.us/president-trump/t...uo-wengui-mar-a-lago

in my third comment to your investigative journalism piece should be dismissed by the court because “they cannot be proven either way”… LOL!

BTW, you need to teach me another of your filtering tools (not that I would dare use it the way you do as the “dueño de los caballitos”). I believe this stuff was not in the original version of your second comment, the version to which I answered:

“As for the other given name, Miles Kwok, in the link you provide at the foot of your previous post, the only source available with such information is the New York Times and it does not inform where from they found that name. Is the New York Times a trustworthy source when it drops such a name without further reference? Well, of course! They took it from an obscure documentary concocted by a Chinese Communist broadcaster, where that name is mentioned – ¡ah! but no record again of where they take it from. The objective is to add to his negative profile implying that he uses various identities on his muddy dealings ... but, is this Chinese Communist broadcaster a trustworthy source?”

Nice trick. I guess “El administrador ha desactivado la escritura pública” is only there to stop Regular Joes like me from subverting evidentiary rules and tainting the chain of custody… LOL!!!

I think it’s a good idea to stick to Schweitzer as your source, even though “many people are saying” (as our tremendous president, another evidentiary rules freak, says frequently) that he’s a partisan hack… Now that school is back and my professional responsibilities as an abuelo are lighter, I may even help you in your endeavors, specially when it comes to putting the spotlight on Lord McConnell and his wife (Bella Chao), who happens to serve as Transportation Secretary in our tremendous president's so called administration. People should know about them before they vote in 2020… LOL!!!

Cambio y fuera! A dozen comments is my limit. LOL!!!!

I would have never expected an innuendo like the one implying that "The administrator has disabled public writing" (as translated from Spanish) is a method to prevent "Regular Joes" from participating in the debate. That is a sad way of deflecting the issue from its due seriousness.

After 381 messages published, Mr. Pallí should know that the FORUM is open to all but those who can turn to spam, place commercials or proceed to other undesirable practices covered by anonymity. Therefore, this clarifying phrase in the FORUM means that those who wish to publish must follow the instructions to do so, which are clearly indicated in the right column. In other words, they must register to publish. Just as Mr. Pallí and I have done to participate in this FORUM.

Since this debate has lost its seriousness and diverts attention to impertinent things, I'll withdraw from now on. Although not without first noting that the insistence on saying that Trump changed his mind because Guo had become a member of Mar-a-Lago, simply means that he agrees with me when I said that the President did not consider him among his followers but among the followers of his rival Democrats. However, this is a Wall Street Journal opinion based on the reporter's alleged knowledge of the arguments used by Trump's aides' to convince him not to deport Guo. It might be true, but I doubt it given the circumstances.

Nor will I withdraw without first pointing out that calling Schweitzer "partisan hack", besides being an opinion, does not prejudice from the evidence he reveals in his book, supported by a myriad references and verifiable sources.

However, I stated that I did not find that sufficient, but that it would be appropriate and necessary to investigate further and to find out more about these facts in order to be able to impartially unmask these politicians.

I do not rely in a single source or a couple of them to reach a conclusion.

Gracias Gerardo!

Como ya tu hiciste el comentario / respuesta numero 13 a tu excelente trabajo de investigación periodística, puedo, sin temores fatídicos, contestar a tu enésima tergiversación en este divertidísimo debate.

Y para clarificar y dificultar tu próxima, y a esta alturas inevitable tergiversación, prefiero responderte “en cristiano”:

Nunca insinué que había barrera alguna (como no sea identificarse como es debido) para participar en estos foros ni en los debates que se suscitan en estos foros. Es mas, sabes lo mucho que me frustra que no haya mas lectores que se animen a comentar y a debatir.

Lo que dije es que habías agregado todo un párrafo a un comentario tuyo al cual yo YA HABIA RESPONDIDO, agregando, festinadamente (como a ti te gusta) que esa es una prerrogativa de la que solo parece disfrutar “el dueño de los caballitos”, o sea quien sabe como “re-abrir” el debate para hacer una inserción fuera de secuencia como la que tu hiciste. Si quien cierra el debate es el administrador, es claro que solo el administrador lo puede reabrir y hasta alterar (porque un agregado fuera de secuencia es una alteración). Cuando menos no es así, y quizás tu o alguno de los excelentes cibernautas que asisten a estos foros me pudieran enseñar a mi, un Regular Joe, a hacerlo también. Pero yo nunca usaría esa herramienta por una cuestión de respeto a mi mismo (ni siquiera indicando que el comentario ha sido alterado, porque quienes ya lo leyeron en su versión original no se van a enterar). A mi nunca me ha hecho falta hacer algo así, como no me hace falta tergiversar a nadie…

Lamento que hayamos pasado al plano personal que desvirtúa el propósito y el tema del mensaje original, lo cual me obliga a dar respuesta contraviniendo mi decisión anterior de no continuar este debate.

Por mi parte evito siempre que sea posible entrar al plano personal, pero me obliga este ataque personal que implica que estoy utilizando métodos tramposos en el debate con un comentario que es mal intencionado o, quizás, sea un problema de ignorancia sobre las opciones que nos da este FORO. En primer lugar, todos los foristas pueden "Editar" sus mensajes durante un tiempo limitado después de haber publicado un texto determinado. Al pie de cada mensaje hay un botón para hacerlo. Luego no cuento con ventaja alguna sobre Pallí al respecto, como él pretende hacerle creer a los lectores. Sin embargo, NUNCA introduzco enmiendas o añado texto aclaratorio DESPUÉS de haber recibido una respuesta.

Es mala fe sugerir que lo hice. Y, para colmo, la burla de calificar como "divertidísimo" un debate que estimo que debe conducirse con estricta seriedad, o acusarme de "enésima tergiversación" sin aclarar cuáles han sido, o acusar a quienes moderan el FORO ("el administrador") de la potestad dictatorial de cerrar el debate porque "es claro que sólo el administrador lo puede reabrir y hasta alterar", según afirma Pallí, lo cual es absolutamente falso porque el mismo Pallí puede testificar que, como lo ha hecho ahora, puede seguir aportando al debate aunque su(s) interlocutor(es) se haya(n) retirado. No obstante, esa potestad SÍ es necesaria en los casos en que un debate pueda llegar a ser ofensivo no sólo a uno o varios interlocutores sino también a los lectores que vienen aquí a buscar ideas y no refriegas.

Por otra parte, para beneficio de los lectores que también deseen participar, recuerden seguir las instrucciones en la columna de la derecha de este FORO y posteriormente el Moderador Jefe le enviará las señas para publicar libremente. No obstante, si desea aclaraciones o instrucciones adicionales sobre todas (o algunas) de las opciones disponibles, incluyendo la función de "Editar", no tienen más que escribir pidiendo asistencia al Equipo de Redacción a libertad@democraciaparticipativa.net.