Doc Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 21 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: are you actually arguing the FBI did not know in 2020 that the Hunter Biden laptop was legit? That the FBI is so incompetent that they went through it and literally thought it was russian disinformation? You seem to fixate on the author putting his name on the article, if I am breaking the news that a man who has a great chance to be president is extraordinarily corrupt I am not rushing to put my name to it. They knew it was real. And if they didn't, they were incredibly incompetent. Neither is a good look for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 34 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: are you actually arguing the FBI did not know in 2020 that the Hunter Biden laptop was legit? That the FBI is so incompetent that they went through it and literally thought it was russian disinformation? You seem to fixate on the author putting his name on the article, if I am breaking the news that a man who has a great chance to be president is extraordinarily corrupt I am not rushing to put my name to it. I’m saying that there isn’t evidence that the FBI told social media companies not to post about the laptop or specifically talked about Hunter. There is in fact evidence to the contrary. In addition to that, while some of the laptop files have been verified, others haven’t. Doesn’t mean they are not real but does mean we cannot definitely say they are at this time. Quote In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI. Maxey had alerted The Washington Post to this issue in advance, saying that others had accessed the data to examine its contents and make copies of files. But the lack of what experts call a “clean chain of custody” undermined Green’s and Williams’s ability to determine the authenticity of most of the drive’s contents. “The drive is a mess,” Green said. He compared the portable drive he received from The Post to a crime scene in which detectives arrive to find Big Mac wrappers carelessly left behind by police officers who were there before them, contaminating the evidence. That assessment was echoed by Williams. “From a forensics standpoint, it’s a disaster,” Williams said. (The Post is paying Williams for the professional services he provided. Green declined payment.) But both Green and Williams agreed on the authenticity of the emails that carried cryptographic signatures, though there was variation in which emails Green and Williams were able to verify using their forensic tools. The most reliable cryptographic signatures, they said, came from leading technology companies such as Google, which alone accounted for more than 16,000 of the verified emails. Neither expert reported finding evidence that individual emails or other files had been manipulated by hackers, but neither was able to rule out that possibility. (Source) In looking at the appropriateness of the FBI’s actions, here’s how I would evaluate different scenarios what they potentially did: Good: 1. Warn companies of potential cybersecurity and/or hacked materials during the election Fine: 2. Tell companies about the laptop but state that they cannot verify all of its contents Bad: 3. Tell companies not to allow anything about the laptop 4. Force companies to not allow anything about the laptop All of the evidence points to scenario one as the most likely. Scenario four is literally impossible. People here seem to think it’s 3 or 4 without evidence to support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 22 minutes ago, Doc said: They knew it was real. And if they didn't, they were incredibly incompetent. Neither is a good look for them. Truly either they are so incompetent that they have no idea what disinformation is and they allow their political identity to cloud their judgement or they are complete political hacks who lied to help a presidential candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 18, 2022 Author Share Posted December 18, 2022 28 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: Truly either they are so incompetent that they have no idea what disinformation is and they allow their political identity to cloud their judgement or they are complete political hacks who lied to help a presidential candidate. The 50 former intelligence officials signed letter literally said that they had no evidence that it was Russian disinformation. It said it right in the letter, that they have no evidence, but that didn't stop the FBI from putting out a "warning" about Russian disinfo efforts or a corrupt media reporting that it actually was Russian disinformation. The security state and media working hand in glove is so obviously and blatantly corrupt...and is actually the real disinformation program. And yet we still have people defending it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: The 50 former intelligence officials signed letter literally said that they had no evidence that it was Russian disinformation. It said it right in the letter, that they have no evidence, but that didn't stop the FBI from putting out a "warning" about Russian disinfo efforts or a corrupt media reporting that it actually was Russian disinformation. The security state and media working hand in glove is so obviously and blatantly corrupt...and is actually the real disinformation program. And yet we still have people defending it. 50 former intelligence officials wrote a note stating that the Hunter story had all the marks of a disinformation op. Because given what was known at the time, it did. Completely unrelated to that, the FBI warned that there might be a release of hacked materials to influence the election because it had happened before. The media was free to take any action they wanted in regard to any of this. Nobody forced them to do anything. The most likely and simplest explanation is pretty banal and yet we still have people here with Very Online Brain who will just believe anything from anyone if it makes the media, the Dems, or any other perceived enemies look bad. The net-net of all of this is that the laptop story got far more coverage because of all of this than it would have otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 So much doxxing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 18, 2022 Author Share Posted December 18, 2022 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: 50 former intelligence officials wrote a note stating that the Hunter story had all the marks of a disinformation op. Because given what was known at the time, it did. Completely unrelated to that, the FBI warned that there might be a release of hacked materials to influence the election because it had happened before. Gtfo. The media collectively decided to all misreport the letter in unison? And say it WAS Russian disinformation and NOT report that the letter explicitly stated there was zero evidence to support the claim? You have to be a massive partisan lemming to buy this narrative. So you're asking for explicit evidence that the FBI coerced Twitter to censor. But when security state partisans explicitly state that they do not have any evidence to support a claim....you just hand wave it away. Shocker! The cognitive dissonance on display here is staggering. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: 50 former intelligence officials wrote a note stating that the Hunter story had all the marks of a disinformation op. Because given what was known at the time, it did. Completely unrelated to that, the FBI warned that there might be a release of hacked materials to influence the election because it had happened before. The media was free to take any action they wanted in regard to any of this. Nobody forced them to do anything. The most likely and simplest explanation is pretty banal and yet we still have people here with Very Online Brain who will just believe anything from anyone if it makes the media, the Dems, or any other perceived enemies look bad. The net-net of all of this is that the laptop story got far more coverage because of all of this than it would have otherwise. They lied. It was obvious to (most) everyone. They could have easily investigated it before making any proclamations, but no one did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 18, 2022 Author Share Posted December 18, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Doc said: They lied. It was obvious to (most) everyone. They could have easily investigated it before making any proclamations, but no one did. Glenn Greenwald has shown in painstaking detail how any reporter could easily determine if the laptop emails were real. Journalism 101 stuff. Yet we are supposed to believe that the world's premiere law enforcement agency couldn't determine the same after they had if for a year? Again, massive cognitive dissonance to buy that huge load of BS. Edited December 18, 2022 by BillsFanNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 4 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Glenn Greenwald has shown in painstaking detail how any reporter could easily determine if the laptop emails were real. Journalism 101 stuff. Yet we are supposed to believe that the world's premiere law enforcement agency couldn't determine the same after they had if for a year? Again, massive cognitive dissonance to buy that huge load of BS. Yup. That's why I've been saying they lied and they need to be investigated fully. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 26 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Glenn Greenwald has shown in painstaking detail how any reporter could easily determine if the laptop emails were real. Journalism 101 stuff. Yet we are supposed to believe that the world's premiere law enforcement agency couldn't determine the same after they had if for a year? Again, massive cognitive dissonance to buy that huge load of BS. I’m not saying that. We don’t know what the FBI knows about it. There is an ongoing investigation into Hunter so we shouldn’t expect them to say anything about it. In fact, we have zero evidence that the FBI said the laptop might be misinformation and good evidence that it didn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 27 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Glenn Greenwald has shown in painstaking detail how any reporter could easily determine if the laptop emails were real. Journalism 101 stuff. Yet we are supposed to believe that the world's premiere law enforcement agency couldn't determine the same after they had if for a year? Again, massive cognitive dissonance to buy that huge load of BS. Day 775 of DR clone searching for a scapegoat for Trumps loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 So many rules at the Peoples Republik of Twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 (edited) 34 minutes ago, BillStime said: So many rules at the Peoples Republik of Twitter Twitter is now Free Speech* *Free Speech does not include certain types of publicly available information, anything criticizing the Chief Twit, or any companies owned or operated by the Chief Twit; nor promotion of any competitors to companies owned and operated by the Chief Twit; or acknowledgment of the existence of said competitors or companies; or platforms that may be deemed to be competitors or future potential competitors. Content that is not considered free speech and may constitute a bannable offense may change at any moment at the whim of the Chief Twit and/or Royal House of Saud and apply retroactively to content that was not a violation when originally posted. Anyone found criticizing or even questioning the Free Speech policy should be told that the Chief Twit can do whatever they want and nobody has a right to criticize him for it and anyone doing so is a big whiny baby. Free speech void were prohibited. No purchase necessary. If your free speech lasts longer than four hours, please consult your local journalist. Edited December 18, 2022 by ChiGoose 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 Twitter is a private company and can do what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 41 minutes ago, Doc said: Twitter is a private company and can do what they want. Well, obviously. Doesn’t mean we can’t point out that the rules are basically just Calvinball at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Well, obviously. Doesn’t mean we can’t point out that the rules are basically just Calvinball at this point. You can point out whatever you want. It will fall on deaf ears just like what we were saying did on your (collective) ears prior to Musk owning it. Oh and the "House of Saud" was cute. Tell me about Joke giving that "pariah" MBS immunity again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 18, 2022 Author Share Posted December 18, 2022 Yup. Russia!!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 12 minutes ago, Doc said: You can point out whatever you want. It will fall on deaf ears just like what we were saying did on your (collective) ears prior to Musk owning it. Oh and the "House of Saud" was cute. Tell me about Joke giving that "pariah" MBS immunity again... Nice deflection. The State Department felt that precedent required it. Which is true but I would say there is a case for breaking with precedent when the person is made head of state almost certainly solely to be granted immunity to avoid being prosecuted. Twitter moderation wasn’t good before Musk. And now it’s worse. Pretending that Musk buying twitter and then seemingly making decisions by throwing darts at a board isn’t newsworthy is just sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Nice deflection. The State Department felt that precedent required it. Which is true but I would say there is a case for breaking with precedent when the person is made head of state almost certainly solely to be granted immunity to avoid being prosecuted. Twitter moderation wasn’t good before Musk. And now it’s worse. Pretending that Musk buying twitter and then seemingly making decisions by throwing darts at a board isn’t newsworthy is just sad. The only one deflecting is you. Dems, Joke included, were up-in-arms over JK's murder and demanded Trump take swift and severe action against MBS. Then when Joke becomes President, not only does he not do that, he begs them for oil and gives MBS immunity. How much of a kick in the teeth is that for you/Dems? Or is it excusable because it's different when you're President? Twitter moderation is no worse than before Elon bought it. It's just that you guys have every reason to complain about it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts