NBC news story on Hunter Biden

[honorentheos]

Part of the issue is you want to relitigate what was discussed at length and more broadly as if the propoganda films were revealing information rather than attempts to tie known corruption issues in Ukraine to Joe Biden.

For example the discussion then included the more objective outlines of power and corruption discussed in the book Moneyland ( here's a review: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... ugh-review ) where many of the underlying facts the propoganda films you are boosting draw from are contextualized in a more factual basis of global ultra-wealthy with no regard for national identity or societal good.

The game of trying to entangle Joe Biden into the web is what gets you in trouble because it's where the facts are tossed over for speculation and statements about how clear it is Biden is part of a network of criminals. You don't honestly care, though. Your concern is to throw shade at Biden at any cost rather than genuine concern about corruption and it's affects on democracy.

[Markk]

There is no Russian propaganda in the documentary…and even if there was please show me where.In fact a French author went after the film maker and accused him of that very same thing…and it went to court and it was found the person that went after him was dead wrong…and was given a suspended sentence, and was ordered to strike her remarks out of any future printings of her book.

Again, not what happened. It seems you just paraphrased his wiki page. That accusation you mention above was based on a book published in 2016 about Russian influence in media in France where the blogger and creator of the so-called documentary was identified back then as one of a number of persons putting out soft pro-Russia propoganda. The attorney that represented the blogger as well as five others was also the attorney for RT in France. As a French articled noted, "All of them are quoted in Vaissié's book and belong, according to her, to a "network in the sociological sense of the term" – as people sharing common opinions that "read and quote each other" – support and relay in France the political and ideological positions of the Kremlin."

So the accusation and lawsuit were long before this documentary nor was it about it. The large criticism that seemed prevalent is that the author had not investigated and verified her claims beyond drawing conclusions. Which is essentially what people on the internet do all the time but journalists are held to a higher standard (see, for example, why most major news outlets did not run with the story about Hunter Biden's lap top). The court ruling you note in your wiki summary was for the claim Berruyer had a ""desire to distort the facts, to attack or to deceive, at least with regard to Russian-Ukrainian issues" which was determined to be defamatory in 2019, with all other claims dismissed.

So, after this Berruyer makes a documentary that is released through Constium News and boosted the many different RT language outlets in 2020 pushing Russian interests with regard to Russian-Ukrainian issues. Today you can browse Olivier's Twitter and see him criticize any moves by France to engage in aggression against Russian vis-a-vis Ukraine, arguing for a nationalist, isolationist and communist France. Any mention on his blog about RT is to decry censorship, claiming it is motived by anti-competition motives among major French news outlets who are all conspiring to keep truth from the common French people...like our Russia-friendly Fox News, OAN, and other similar networks claim.

So. Yeah.

So watch the video and point out what is Russian disinformation…you are dealing with what is out heir, your only resort is identity politics that attack anyone that threatens you preconvied ideology.

There are a lot of libertarians that are good people here that believe we should stay out of the mess over there, and we are to a degree. But fair enough, CFR on the reasons why Oliver wants to stay out. But either way, it does not negate what he clearly shows in the documentary.

[Markk]

Part of the issue is you want to relitigate what was discussed at length and more broadly as if the propoganda films were revealing information rather than attempts to tie known corruption issues in Ukraine to Joe Biden.

For example the discussion then included the more objective outlines of power and corruption discussed in the book Moneyland ( here's a review: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... ugh-review ) where many of the underlying facts the propoganda films you are boosting draw from are contextualized in a more factual basis of global ultra-wealthy with no regard for national identity or societal good.

The game of trying to entangle Joe Biden into the web is what gets you in trouble because it's where the facts are tossed over for speculation and statements about how clear it is Biden is part of a network of criminals. You don't honestly care, though. Your concern is to throw shade at Biden at any cost rather than genuine concern about corruption and it's affects on democracy.

It is not a propaganda film…it is a documentary that is no difference than watching 60 minutes…you haven’t even watched it Honor…or if you have please show me what parts are propaganda. You can certainly state it is a opinion pieces, as is any Fox, CNN, or CBS (60 minutes) doc’s are. But that’s what we want on this topic, at least I do…two opinions we can dissect and review. It is hard when you won’t even look at what i offer…After You Asked Me Too!

My “game” Honor is to be open and honest and explore this…your “game” is to ignore, and just make it about me,and not what is actually out there to review.

[Markk]

I haven’t read all the article yet you linked, i will read it hopefully tonight after my honey do’s are done…but I opened and the first sentence is problematic.

It should read Oligarchs like all those mentioned, but we can add, The Bush’s, Clintons, Obama’s and certainly Biden’s. I read Money Land a few years ago an all those mentioned above fit the profile. I would put Trump in another class,, more as a shrewd capitalist taking advantage of greasing the pockets of the American Oligarchs. But if yiu want to call him fine.

[Father Francis]

I accept the way Trump handled the information, it is history, and it is what it is, but it has nothing to do “with the information”…which can be reviewed objectively for what it is, apart from how Trump handled it. You set up a straw-man, that because you don’t like the way Trump handled it, therefor the information and data on the hard drives are somehow irrelevant, or off limits for anyone else to review and analyze.

Are you familiar with the phrase "chain of custody" and how it applies here? It isn't a straw man, and it isn't a matter of someone liking it or not. It's a legit legal issue.

[Markk]

I accept the way Trump handled the information, it is history, and it is what it is, but it has nothing to do “with the information”…which can be reviewed objectively for what it is, apart from how Trump handled it. You set up a straw-man, that because you don’t like the way Trump handled it, therefor the information and data on the hard drives are somehow irrelevant, or off limits for anyone else to review and analyze.

Are you familiar with the phrase "chain of custody" and how it applies here? It isn't a straw man, and it isn't a matter of someone liking it or not. It's a legit legal issue

Hey FF,

Well this is not a trial…or even close…it is not a legal issue. It is not a procedure either…nor do we have a judge, jury, or mediator. It is just a couple of hacks with different opinions peeing on a fire hydrant.

Honestly, I would like to get to all the “smoke,“ as Honor calls it. But, It is difficult for different reasons. One reason is discussions forums rarely stay on track…there are two many people jumping in and out, or too many rabbit trails…or derailments. Another is it takes two…if one person won’t look at what the other one offers up, it tough.

I believe it is a straw-man in that I am trying to just go through the e-mail data and speak to the data and let it fall where it falls…Honor declines to get into the data of the lap top and more, because other folks did not present the data in what he feels is the correct way. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to the Biden being dirty, right or wrong I believe that. But I can’t paint my side of the discussion unless the other poster entertains evidences to as what I believe.

If this was a trial, or mediation…then I believe chain of custody would be relevant, but for both parties, it is not exclusive to just one party.

But I will hear you out….explain to me why the data can't’t be examined on it’s own, apart from how Rudy and Trump released it?

Thanks.

[Father Francis]

Are you familiar with the phrase "chain of custody" and how it applies here? It isn't a straw man, and it isn't a matter of someone liking it or not. It's a legit legal issue

But I will hear you out….explain to me why the data can't’t be examined on it’s own, apart from how Rudy and Trump released it?

Thanks

I guess you don't understand why chain of custody is a legal issue. The reason it is a legal issue is the same reason the data can't be taken at face value outside of a courtroom.

[Jersey Girl]

lets go through the doc, and I am sure there are parts I would side with you on, but there are also parts that paint a clear pattern that I am trying to convey…what are you afraid of?

I don't understand why you don't line up the parts that paint the pattern you refer to so folks can examine it.

[Markk]

But I will hear you out….explain to me why the data can't’t be examined on it’s own, apart from how Rudy and Trump released it?

Thanks

I guess you don't understand why chain of custody is a legal issue. The reason it is a legal issue is the same reason the data can't be taken at face value outside of a courtroom.

This isn’t a courtroom, it is a discussion board. LOL are you sayin we can’t look at evidences outside of a courtroom, examine them, discuss them and form opinions?

So, can we examine Mormonism and form opinions about LDS prophets and the church as a whole…outside of the “courtroom?”

But explain to me why I can’t form a opinion, based on the evidences that exist that one Hunter Biden was and has been involved in Shady dealing (saying it lightly) and two, that his father just might have covered for him, knew about what he was doing, and at the worst been involved in some of the shady deals?

Thanks

[Markk]

lets go through the doc, and I am sure there are parts I would side with you on, but there are also parts that paint a clear pattern that I am trying to convey…what are you afraid of?

I don't understand why you don't line up the parts that paint the pattern you refer to so folks can examine it.

LOL…I’m trying to sister …Jersey Girl read the thread, that’s what I am trying to do? I tell you what…. Watch this video and then lets go through and discuss the issues. This is just a small bit of some of the canvass I am trying to paint a picture of…but it is a good start. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/13/n ... rainegate/