Facebook and Twitter reducing distribution of New York Post Hunter Biden story [merged threads]

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Now is just time to enjoy it:

 

 

 

---------------

 

 

 

 

 

----------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some of these hilarious arguments such as "if the MSM isn't running the story, it must be fake" I've read here recently.. hmm...

 

 

 

[laylalex 7,300]

OMG, I'm so sorry, and please don't take this the wrong way, but I need to trademark here: 

 

Wall of Tweets™

 

Also, I have to point out that seriously nothing has been proven about whether emails were genuine, or not, whether the Delaware laptop was really dropped off by Hunter Biden, or not, or anything. There's been people saying that things were true, or not, but nothing that has come definitively out of an FBI investigation, for example, or in a prosecution. Just because someone says something in a deposition or under oath (1) doesn't mean it is actually true and/or (2) even if it is true doesn't mean it's a fact that's actually usable in a prosecution. Again, my legal training comes down to "listened to Dad" and "took the LSAT" but I know that a declaration or an affidavit or deposition testimony isn't enough by itself to prove that anything is actually real. 

 

Now we're getting an IRS investigation, and we'll find out some stuff about what is going on with his taxes. I am also in the boat of "this dude is doing some shady stuff" but I don't like to jump to conclusions. I don't have all the tools of an investigating body or a prosecutor. The tax issue has the ring of truth about it though. 

[seekingthetruth 1,248]

38 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I am also in the boat of "this dude is doing some shady stuff" but I don't like to jump to conclusions.

The publicized materials that came from Hunter's laptop, such as the porn, are either real or not.  You don't need to jump to conclusions.  You believe it is real, or you believe it is faked.  Regardless, if those images were of a conservative's family member, they would be headline news for weeks, on all MSM.

[laylalex 7,300]

1 minute ago, seekingthetruth said:

The publicized materials that came from Hunter's laptop, such as the porn, are either real or not.  You don't need to jump to conclusions.  You believe it is real, or you believe it is faked.  Regardless, if those images were of a conservative's family member, they would be headline news for weeks, on all MSM.

Why do we need to jump to "regardless"? We're talking about one guy here, we don't need to compare to anyone else. We can look at him, and my god has the press looked at him. I wonder if people who rail against mainstream media actually consume any of it sometimes because trust me, this was covered heavily before the election. 

 

I don't know if they're real or not, and it kind of doesn't matter whether or not I think they're real or faked. I happen to think the photos are real and I sort of... don't care? My opinion is useless when it comes to whether they are real or not. As I said, I am not equipped to make any of those determinations. I can think that some things are more likely to be within the realm of possibility (Hunter Biden messed around with his taxes, sat naked in a bathtub looking much steamier than DJTJ could ever hope, etc.) and some that are less likely (Hunter Biden is at the center of a vast web of a conspiracy involving China/Ukraine/hookers like a male Shelob, raking in cash in exchange for favors from his dad). But in the end -- opinions only (especially whether Hunter Biden looks good in that bathtub pic).

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

 I have to point out that seriously nothing has been proven about whether emails were genuine, or not, whether the Delaware laptop was really dropped off by Hunter Biden, or not, or anything.

Like I said to someone else, people believe only what they want to believe...

 

Quote

A cybersecurity expert said he confirmed the authenticity of an email sent to Hunter Biden about an purported meeting between his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a top official at Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company where the younger Biden held a lucrative position on the board.

Quote

Graham, who has been cited by other outlets such as the Washington Post and the Associated Press, said he used cryptographic signature found in the email’s metadata to validate that Vadym Pozharsky, an adviser to Burisma’s board of directors, emailed Biden in the spring of 2015 thanking him for “inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together.”

Quote

 

Graham said he used the DomainKeys Identified Mail, or DKIM signature within the email to verify with a private key on Google's servers that the sender, recipient, subject, date, and body of the email were unchanged from when it was originally sent.

The only way the email could have been faked is if someone hacked into Google's servers, found the private key, and used it to reverse engineer the email's DKIM signature, Graham, said.

“Of course, committing criminal hacking doesn’t make true information any less true, so no matter how illegitimately they gathered emails, the contents are provably legitimate,” Graham said.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cybersecurity-expert-says-hunter-biden-email-about-former-vp-meeting-burisma-official-is-authentic/ar-BB1awJxR

 

 

Quote

 

Multiple federal law enforcement officials, as well as two separate government officials, confirmed the authenticity of these documents, which were signed by FBI Special Agent Joshua Wilson. Wilson did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment. 

One of the documents, obtained by Fox News, was designated as an FBI “Receipt for Property” form, which details the bureau’s interactions with John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of “The Mac Shop” who reported the laptop’s contents to authorities. 

The document has a “Case ID” section, which is filled in with a hand-written number: 272D-BA-3065729. 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/laptop-hunter-biden-linked-fbi-money-laundering-probe

 

The truth doesn't depend on whether others reject or accept it. This has been proven all around over and over. The million dollar question, and a far more concerning one than the comedic mental gymnastics of denial is where are the people with prosecutory authority (we see their involvement in "investigations" of endless people in both parties for corrupt and criminal activities and no one ever pays the price) and why aren't they prosecuting.

 

 

9 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Why do we need to jump to "regardless"? We're talking about one guy here, we don't need to compare to anyone else. We can look at him, and my god has the press looked at him. I wonder if people who rail against mainstream media actually consume any of it sometimes because trust me, this was covered heavily before the election. 

 

I don't know if they're real or not, and it kind of doesn't matter whether or not I think they're real or faked. I happen to think the photos are real and I sort of... don't care? My opinion is useless when it comes to whether they are real or not. As I said, I am not equipped to make any of those determinations. I can think that some things are more likely to be within the realm of possibility (Hunter Biden messed around with his taxes, sat naked in a bathtub looking much steamier than DJTJ could ever hope, etc.) and some that are less likely (Hunter Biden is at the center of a vast web of a conspiracy involving China/Ukraine/hookers like a male Shelob, raking in cash in exchange for favors from his dad). But in the end -- opinions only (especially whether Hunter Biden looks good in that bathtub pic).

The photos that came from that laptop, which was dropped off by Hunter, with receipts and all.

 

Some refreshing honesty though.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[seekingthetruth 1,248]

13 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I wonder if people who rail against mainstream media actually consume any of it sometimes because trust me, this was covered heavily before the election. 

Covered heavily?  As shown in the Tweets above, the only coverage was aimed at discrediting the stories.

Edited December 11, 2020 by seekingthetruth

[laylalex 7,300]

But you undermine your own arguments here -- and I say that with respect, truly. Nothing has been proven. This Graham guy -- I did look into him weeks ago when you wrote about him, and I understand his bona fides -- is an expert in his field, but we aren't a court of law. We're a court of opinion, and that genuinely means squat. There are guardrails when experts appear in court, they have to explain in detail the mechanics of how they test things, why they are the right people to rely on to say "this is my expert opinion and you should believe it," replicate experiments. We don't have that. We have one guy -- a very impressive person, I do not dispute that! -- saying: I think these are real. But where is the opposing expert opinion? We have half of the story, and in the end none of us outside of a courtroom get to say definitively these emails came from this guy on that computer. Defendants get the chance to rebut and bring their own experts and witnesses and whatnot. The truth for the purposes of "should people go to prison or get fined" isn't something that we get to decide, unless we're on a jury. 

 

Why would a prosecutor not take up a case when there's lots of "proof"? Well, the usual reason is there's not enough that's reliable enough to make a case. The standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, right? So a prosecutor wants to make sure he or she can show a jury there is no reasonable doubt. My own understanding is that there are so many cases that don't go further because there are pieces of the puzzle missing. And because of double jeopardy, what prosecutor is going to want to go to trial and lose, and then some years later the missing pieces come in and click-click into place? That's worse. Someone is exonerated because someone wanted to charge ahead with out building the case, brick by brick into an unassailable wall. 

[laylalex 7,300]

12 minutes ago, seekingthetruth said:

Covered heavily?  As shown in the Tweets above, the only coverage was aimed at discrediting the stories.

How do you know this is "the only coverage"? Did those tweets cover the universe of every story on Hunter Biden? I kind of doubt it, sorry.

[seekingthetruth 1,248]

3 minutes ago, laylalex said:

How do you know this is "the only coverage"? Did those tweets cover the universe of every story on Hunter Biden? I kind of doubt it, sorry.

OK, if you are going to nitpick, change "only" to "almost all MSN coverage".  You know what I meant.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

25 minutes ago, laylalex said:

But you undermine your own arguments here -- and I say that with respect, truly. Nothing has been proven. This Graham guy -- I did look into him weeks ago when you wrote about him, and I understand his bona fides -- is an expert in his field, but we aren't a court of law. We're a court of opinion, and that genuinely means squat. There are guardrails when experts appear in court, they have to explain in detail the mechanics of how they test things, why they are the right people to rely on to say "this is my expert opinion and you should believe it," replicate experiments. We don't have that. We have one guy -- a very impressive person, I do not dispute that! -- saying: I think these are real. But where is the opposing expert opinion? We have half of the story, and in the end none of us outside of a courtroom get to say definitively these emails came from this guy on that computer. Defendants get the chance to rebut and bring their own experts and witnesses and whatnot. The truth for the purposes of "should people go to prison or get fined" isn't something that we get to decide, unless we're on a jury. 

 

Why would a prosecutor not take up a case when there's lots of "proof"? Well, the usual reason is there's not enough that's reliable enough to make a case. The standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, right? So a prosecutor wants to make sure he or she can show a jury there is no reasonable doubt. My own understanding is that there are so many cases that don't go further because there are pieces of the puzzle missing. And because of double jeopardy, what prosecutor is going to want to go to trial and lose, and then some years later the missing pieces come in and click-click into place? That's worse. Someone is exonerated because someone wanted to charge ahead with out building the case, brick by brick into an unassailable wall. 

I think the "I know it might be true but don't care" answer was sufficient.

[laylalex 7,300]

25 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I think the "I know it might be true but don't care" answer was sufficient.

I dunno, sometimes it's okay to go a little overboard on a post, don't you think?  

47 minutes ago, seekingthetruth said:

OK, if you are going to nitpick, change "only" to "almost all MSN coverage".  You know what I meant.

MSN? Like MSNBC? 

[seekingthetruth 1,248]

13 minutes ago, laylalex said:

MSN? Like MSNBC?

A typo, of course.  If it was MSNBC,  I would have said 100% of their coverage was aimed at discrediting the stories.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

I dunno, sometimes it's okay to go a little overboard on a post, don't you think?  

MSN? Like MSNBC? 

Some people aren't clear that you can change your browser homepage away from MSN. 

[Dashinka 24,731]

Media disgraceful in trying to suppress Post’s Hunter Biden reporting

 

In high-school journalism classes, teenaged would-be reporters are taught to value curiosity and independent thinking above all. Question powerful people, they’re told, and don’t trust anything anyone says, even if it’s Mom telling you she loves you.

Too bad most actual, adult reporters and editors these days don’t follow these rules when it comes to covering powerful liberals.

Witness the reaction of nearly all mainstream media to The Post’s bombshell reporting on the Hunter Biden Files, which recently garnered yet another boost of verification — this one courtesy of the illustrious vice-presidential son himself, who revealed that federal authorities are probing his “taxes.”

The probe appears to be much wider than that, in fact. Politico and the Times report that investigators across several jurisdictions are looking into potential money-laundering involving Hunter’s foreign ties and his finances generally. CNN says “at least one of the matters investigators have examined is a 2017 gift of a 2.8-carat diamond that Hunter Biden received” from an executive of a state-backed Chinese energy firm.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/12/10/media-disgraceful-trying-to-suppress-posts-hunter-biden-reporting/

[Dashinka 24,731]

Hunter Biden News Should Shame Dismissive Media Outlets

COMMENTARY

 

In retrospect, not only do the documents appear to be authentic, but a Daily Beast report Thursday notes evidence that the Hunter Biden investigation was hiding in plain sight. One of the FBI documents from the laptop published by the Post “included a case number that had the code associated with an ongoing federal money laundering investigation in Delaware, according to several law enforcement officials who reviewed the document. Another document — one with a grand jury subpoena number — appeared to show the initials of two assistant U.S. attorneys linked to the Wilmington, Delaware, office.” Hunter Biden claims he only learned of the  investigation this past week, but these documents suggest otherwise.

Even a cursory inquiry by the New York Post’s competitors would have confirmed that Biden was under federal investigation. One journalist did behave like a reporter. In late October, Sinclair Broadcast Group correspondent James Rosen reported that Hunter Biden was under active investigation and a Justice Department official confirmed his scoop. Almost without exception, America’s press corps refused to follow up on Rosen’s revelation — or even report it.

It’s bad enough that the allegations were ignored, but the media response to the story was far worse. Without making any meaningful attempts to independently verify any of the details, they immediately asserted that Hunter Biden’s laptop was part of a “Russian disinformation” campaign.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/12/14/hunter_biden_news_should_shame_dismissive_media_outlets_144837.html