Flashback: Hunter's Laptop Russian Disinformation

[ajax18]

.
“For all we know, these emails are made up or maybe some are real and others are fakes — we don’t know,” Stelter said.

That statement is legit, ajax. Can you be more specific about what the issue is?

Has the content of all claimed Hunter Biden emails been proven to have originated with Hunter Biden?

Has anything from any legitimate emails pointed to any conclusively illegal or problematic activities with Dad Biden?

Watch the video linked in the original post.

[canpakes]

.
“For all we know, these emails are made up or maybe some are real and others are fakes — we don’t know,” Stelter said.

That statement is legit, ajax. Can you be more specific about what the issue is?

Has the content of all claimed Hunter Biden emails been proven to have originated with Hunter Biden?

Has anything from any legitimate emails pointed to any conclusively illegal or problematic activities with Dad Biden?

Watch the video linked in the original post.

Reading the Brietbart article was enough ‘dancing around while saying nothing’ for the day.

If you’re not able or willing to commit to an answer to the questions, then I’m not willing to generate your answer for you. They’re pretty specific questions. You should find them easy to answer.

[Kukulkan]

What's your evidence for this?

David Cay Johnson is the guy who miraculously received the tax return and he believes it very well could've been Trump or a Trump operative who sent it to him. It was only a portion of his 2005 tax return, which gave Trump the opportunity to shift the narrative by saying "See, see there's nothing there."

In his first public remarks about the leaking of part of his 2005 federal tax return, snip

I think we might be confusing which tax return leak is being discussed. The one I referencing to was not the Rachael Maddow leak, it was the leak that released over 2 decades of his returns. The 2005 leak was most likely a purposeful leak with the purpose that you already mentioned of being able to wave it off as a nothingburger. The 2020 leak by the NYT though was heavily criticized by Trump.

US President Donald Trump says allegations by the New York Times that he has paid as little as $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 are "fake news".

Mr Trump said the tax authorities in the US had treated him "very badly".

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-54322121

Hey did you ever think to ask yourself why a story like this is important at all? Hunter Biden is a nobody. He's not an elected official. Who cares if he is a crack addict who films his 9 inch shlong and likes having sex with Asian girls? Why would this kind of story, even if everything said about it turned out to be true, be more important than say, the current President being caught cheating on his taxes, which anyone with a friggin brain knows he did? There really is no suspense when it comes to whether or not we know Trump broke laws. Of course he did. That was his trademark as President.

If we found out Trump's sons were filming themselves naked and were packing what Hunter is packing, they'd likely be bragging about it and people like Atlanticmike would be salivating over it as proof that Conservative types are more manly.

I agree with you. It was a hit piece. It was unsavory. Just because it was a hit piece with the obvious intent of castigating doubt to a potential Biden presidency doesn't mean that we get to censor it because we don't like it. I think the reluctancy of Twitter to censor the NYT tax return leak which undoubtably falls under their 'hacked materials' policy yet shut down and dissemination of the Hunter Biden story should raise at least a few alarm bells. Yes, at the end of the day they are private company and have no obligation to let anyone on the platform post anything. They can censor as much as they want, it is their right to do so. I think what people are cautious and even upset about is the apparent unfairness in regards to who gets censored in situations like this.

[honorentheos]

FLASHBACK — Watch: Biden, Democrats, Media Call Hunter Biden’s Laptop ‘Russian Disinformation’

Joe Biden, Democrats, and the establishment media claimed that Hunter Biden’s authenticated ‘laptop from hell’ was “disinformation” and “propaganda” from Russia amidst the 2020 presidential election season.

Despite the reporting of now-Breitbart’s Political Editor Emma-Joe Morris, who broke the story of Hunter’s laptop for the New York Post in the fall of 2020, Biden and his allies were quick to discredit the authenticated laptop as having “no basis” and being a “disinformation” campaign from Russia. Among those who discredited the story include then-presidential candidate Joe Biden, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, and now-White House press secretary Jen Psaki.

On Wednesday, the New York Times finally admitted that Hunter’s laptop was authenticated in a report that Hunter paid an outstanding $1 million tax bill to the IRS to evade a conviction.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022 ... formation/

It took until paragraph 24 for the New York Times to finally admit this wasn't Russian disinformation. In the meantime Facebook successfully shielded candidate BIden by banning the New York Post from publishing the story and upholding Biden's lies demonstrated in the video clip. With the Democrat government is pressuring Facebook to toe the Democrat narrative and party line, one has to ask if the first amendment means much. How are we that different from the people in Russia in what information we're allowed to consume and point out? The first amendment of the Constitution is indeed hanging by a thread.

Ajax, what was the actual scandal claimed to be revealed by the emails on the laptop back in fall 2020? I'm curious what you believe here.

[honorentheos]

Just because it was a hit piece with the obvious intent of castigating doubt to a potential Biden presidency doesn't mean that we get to censor it because we don't like it.

Again, that's not what happened. Journalists first attempted to investigate it and were refused access to electronic copies of the emails that could be used to validate their origin. In October 2020. After the Trump campaign squeaked out a victory in 2016 from another laptop-related October surprise. Running the story was all the Trump campaign needed to happen to make it successful because that's our relationship to information in the US. We aren't sophisticated consumers of news.

These aren't comparable incidents.

[Kukulkan]

I think there is merit to the argument questioning large social media conglomerates who act as fact checkers.

The perceived fairness of any fact checking is a valid question, but that follows another, overriding issue. There’s a difference between a large media company (the Post) freely deciding what it wants to promulgate via its own resources, versus asking an unaffiliated large social media company to propagate the Post’s property, via that social media company’s own resources.

I have a hard time buying into the argument that Twitter or Facebook owe an amplified voice to any particular source, given that they are their own businesses, and should be allowed to determine how their platforms are utilized within the law. That’s upsetting to some folks, but in the same way, I’m not going to be upset if Home Depot doesn’t carry Confederate flags in its home and garden center, simply because Home Depot has widespread nationwide reach into the consumer marketplace. Being in that position does not impose a demand upon them to meet everyone’s needs … for free, to boot.

Absolutely agree. Twitter and Facebook have no obligation to promulgate any media from anyone. I think the critique here is that there were two situations that arguably should have been handled the same way because both would have been under the same 'hacked content' policy, but one was seemingly given preferential treatment over the other.

[ajax18]

The Big Guy's cut. It helps answer how a liflong congressman is purchasing multiple homes on a $200k/year salary.

The real scandal is the squelching of conservative sppech in the public square.

[Kukulkan]

Just because it was a hit piece with the obvious intent of castigating doubt to a potential Biden presidency doesn't mean that we get to censor it because we don't like it.

Again, that's not what happened. Journalists first attempted to investigate it and were refused access to electronic copies of the emails that could be used to validate their origin. In October 2020. After the Trump campaign squeaked out a victory in 2016 from another laptop-related October surprise. Running the story was all the Trump campaign needed to happen to make it successful because that's our relationship to information in the US. We aren't sophisticated consumers of news.

These aren't comparable incidents.

That would add a lot more context to the situation. Do you happen to have a good article about the journalists trying to validate the story but being refused access?

[honorentheos]

Again, that's not what happened. Journalists first attempted to investigate it and were refused access to electronic copies of the emails that could be used to validate their origin. In October 2020. After the Trump campaign squeaked out a victory in 2016 from another laptop-related October surprise. Running the story was all the Trump campaign needed to happen to make it successful because that's our relationship to information in the US. We aren't sophisticated consumers of news.

These aren't comparable incidents.

That would add a lot more context to the situation. Do you happen to have a good article about the journalists trying to validate the story but being refused access?

Searching around will turn it up, but here's the first hit from my Google search (from October 30, 2020) to get you started:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... d-n1245533

We talked about it back when it was actually new on the board, too. You can probably find threads with more. Again, even Tucker Carlson dropped the story once he tried to get the information from Rudy.

[canpakes]

The Big Guy's cut. It helps answer how a liflong congressman is purchasing multiple homes on a $200k/year salary.

The real scandal is the squelching of conservative sppech in the public square.

Are you serious? : D

You voted for a guy who claims to lose more money than he makes, every year. How does he have branded golf courses and hotels?

Lending and investment realities aside, if you pay me $200k a year - or whatever average you want to throw out there as a congresscritter’s pay - I’ll guarantee you that I’ll have multiple homes in two years, let alone 20 or more. We briefly did it on a third of that income.

Regarding “the squelching of conservative speech in the public square”, I maintain my position regarding your desire to force a business to propagate someone else’s speech. I maintain that same position for Parler and Truth Social, as well.