Red Mosquito

elliseamos wrote:Looking at these docs more closely, it seems murky.

The receipt is from April 2019 and is easy enough to forge.

The subpeona seems legit, but does not necessarily support anything else in this story.

If connecting these dots is the basis for the alleged cover up and the purported "weaponization" of the gov it all seems flimsy.

And all of this is to say it's the same kettle logic that Trump & his team were throwing around about Hillary leading up to 2016. So the fact that Guiliani is pivotal player in the story certainly makes me skeptical of its truthfulness.

It could be 100% true, but I'm left with quite a bit of reasonable doubt.

Here's the problem, in an attempt to quash some possible criminal charges, Hunters legal team is now claiming the laptop and it's contents are his. Previously they were making the opposite claim.

At the end of the day it's mostly just influence peddling, but Hunter didn't have the decency to do it all through the Biden Foundation, which we all unofficially decided was the proper way to launder foreign bribes.

Well that helps clarify things with repect to the laptop, but what contents are they saying are his?

I ask because there is still a case to be made for him to say I left it with this guy in April 2019 and there after I don't know what this guy and Rudy did with my laptop prior to October 2019 when the fbi took possession.

And, given that amount of time there seems to be legitimate reason for Twitter to handle the story very carefully in October 2020.

elliseamos wrote: And, given that amount of time there seems to be legitimate reason for Twitter to handle the story very carefully in October 2020.

They could choose to burn calories on how to limit how this was shared on their site, but had absolutely no obligation to do so.

For this one they went so far as to prevent link sharing, which normally is limited to things like child pornography. This was all hands on deck. Why was that?

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote: And, given that amount of time there seems to be legitimate reason for Twitter to handle the story very carefully in October 2020.

They could choose to burn calories on how to limit how this was shared on their site, but had absolutely no obligation to do so.

For this one they went so far as to prevent link sharing, which normally is limited to things like child pornography. This was all hands on deck. Why was that?

The simple answer is they got burned in 2016 and were over compensating.

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote: And, given that amount of time there seems to be legitimate reason for Twitter to handle the story very carefully in October 2020.

They could choose to burn calories on how to limit how this was shared on their site, but had absolutely no obligation to do so.

For this one they went so far as to prevent link sharing, which normally is limited to things like child pornography. This was all hands on deck. Why was that?

The simple answer is they got burned in 2016 and were over compensating.

who got burned?

BurtReynolds wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote: And, given that amount of time there seems to be legitimate reason for Twitter to handle the story very carefully in October 2020.

They could choose to burn calories on how to limit how this was shared on their site, but had absolutely no obligation to do so.

For this one they went so far as to prevent link sharing, which normally is limited to things like child pornography. This was all hands on deck. Why was that?

The simple answer is they got burned in 2016 and were over compensating.

who got burned?

Too many rare pepes getting shared made the stock go down. It is known.

BurtReynolds wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote: And, given that amount of time there seems to be legitimate reason for Twitter to handle the story very carefully in October 2020.

They could choose to burn calories on how to limit how this was shared on their site, but had absolutely no obligation to do so.

For this one they went so far as to prevent link sharing, which normally is limited to things like child pornography. This was all hands on deck. Why was that?

The simple answer is they got burned in 2016 and were over compensating.

who got burned?

Facebook for sure.

I must have made up how social media was inundated with disinformation during the 2016 election.

taibbi came across bad on his interview with mehdi hasan in my opinion. a lot of holes poked

Peeps wrote:taibbi came across bad on his interview with mehdi hasan in my opinion. a lot of holes poked

What were those?

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:taibbi came across bad on his interview with mehdi hasan in my opinion. a lot of holes poked

What were those?

the implication that the biden regime (ie as president) wanted hunter biden posts removed without giving the context that they asked for the naked pictures taken down due to the posts being against policy. even when he was questioned on it he blathered about how he didnt have to give context.

when asked why he wont criticize some of the things (i cant remember the exact list but there were a few things) about elon he refused to and (to me) that gives the implication that he doesnt want to bad mouth the boss

i didnt watch the whole thing but plan to do so tonight but those were some of the things i found interesting

Peeps wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:taibbi came across bad on his interview with mehdi hasan in my opinion. a lot of holes poked

What were those?

the implication that the biden regime (ie as president) wanted hunter biden posts removed without giving the context that they asked for the naked pictures taken down due to the posts being against policy. even when he was questioned on it he blathered about how he didnt have to give context.

when asked why he wont criticize some of the things (i cant remember the exact list but there were a few things) about elon he refused to and (to me) that gives the implication that he doesnt want to bad mouth the boss

i didnt watch the whole thing but plan to do so tonight but those were some of the things i found interesting

I haven't watched either, but it sounds like Hassan is intentionally conflating the coordinated suppression of the laptop story itself (which is the point of that TwF release) with the suppression of the naked pictures. The only clip I've seen so far is that Matt mixed up CISA and CIS (a CISA subcontractor) and wrongly stated the order in which they were created, which he has admitted and corrected in the published content... and then in the same clip something about wording on one of the TwF tweets about the distinction between flagging, scraping, analyzed, adjudicating, and reporting tweets leading to incorrect counts.

Matt certainly embarrassed himself in that clip though.

i think most media are slanted even ones who proclaim they arent but i do find mehdi one of the more tolerable faces out there

i do not for one second believe elon did a file dump of everything but more of a slanted view of what he wanted to get out there

Peeps wrote:i think most media are slanted even ones who proclaim they arent but i do find mehdi one of the more tolerable faces out there

i do not for one second believe elon did a file dump of everything but more of a slanted view of what he wanted to get out there

I agree that it’s more likely than not the information was vetted prior to being handed off. The TwF were advertising from Musk's perspective. That’s doesn’t mean the conclusions are wrong, but it’s fair game for folks like Hassan to aggressively review it and identify mistakes and misstatements.

What made me turn it off was when Taibbi tried to make the basis for all of his investigating about how Joe could ask for the pictures of Hunter to be unlinked from tweets and other people, because they're ordinary, can't.

A Mean Girls pile-on months later when they smell blood in the water. sad what they have become

Bi_3 wrote:A Mean Girls pile-on months later when they smell blood in the water. sad what they have become

who is they here?

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:A Mean Girls pile-on months later when they smell blood in the water. sad what they have become

who is they here?

The “internet researchers” called out for collaborating on suppression of political speech.