Trump slams Facebook, Twitter for taking down Biden story in NY Post

[Tippaporn]

47 minutes ago, stevenl said:

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

If so, it is high time Biden sr and jr came out and publicly stated "These emails are fake, Hunter Biden did not write any of them, the whole story is a hoax".

 If this happens, then there would be grounds to call the story contested. But nearly a week in to this scandal, the Bidens have yet to deny the authenticity, and ONCE AGAIN I point out the Bidens own campaign surrogate said 

"I don't think anybody is saying they are inauthentic".

 

Stevenl, pls explain why you feel you have better info than the Bidens? If somebody went public with a made up claim to defame me I would deny it immediately and loudly. In this case the only people denying the veracity of the whole story - and making dubious claims such as Ukrainians or Russians made it up -(against the credible and informed statements by the DOJ, NI and FBI and Bidens own team who say there is no Russian aspect here/and the emails are authentic) are the left.

Right now this has only gotten traction in the right wing corner, nowhere else. So you may have acted differently, but it seems Biden's response was the right one.

 

What many people don't seem to understand is that the basis of the misinformation is to intertwine fake with real. So Biden can not declare 'all emails are fake', because a part will be real.

Of course this story is not getting any traction with the MSM, which are most likely the only sources of information you find 'believable.'  This story is radioactive for them since if true it would utterly destroy Biden's bid for president (remember, if Biden Sr. is tied financially or otherwise to countries such as Ukraine and especially China then he becomes a national security risk - the same rationale used by the left to explain how Trump Russian collusion would constitute a national security risk on the part of Trump).

 

Explain this away as misinformation or excuse by any other creative, inventive rationale:

 

Fox News - Laptop connected to Hunter Biden linked to FBI money laundering probe

[Tippaporn]

Here's a great suggestion by National Review author Andrew McCarthy (right bias, mostly factual) - rather than repeal or rewrite Section 230 simply apply the conditions of immunity as prescribe by Section 230.  Similar to the benefits provided by government to a non-profit.  As long as a non-profit adheres to the conditions, such as remaining neutral and not endorsing political candidates for example, they can enjoy the benefits.  They're still free to make their own choices and can chose to endorse a political candidate.  But as soon as they do they are no longer eligible for those benefits.

 

Eligibility requirements, as laid out in Section 230, should apply as well.  If Twitter or other social media companies behave as content providers rather than an interactive computer service then they lose the protections guaranteed by Section 230 and are open to lawsuits.  Fair enough.

 

How to Put a Stop to Twitter’s Game-Playing on Censorship

[Sujo]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Of course this story is not getting any traction with the MSM, which are most likely the only sources of information you find 'believable.'  This story is radioactive for them since if true it would utterly destroy Biden's bid for president (remember, if Biden Sr. is tied financially or otherwise to countries such as Ukraine and especially China then he becomes a national security risk - the same rationale used by the left to explain how Trump Russian collusion would constitute a national security risk on the part of Trump).

 

Explain this away as misinformation or excuse by any other creative, inventive rationale:

 

Fox News - Laptop connected to Hunter Biden linked to FBI money laundering probe

You do know trump is tied financially to china dont you.

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's a great suggestion by National Review author Andrew McCarthy (right bias, mostly factual) - rather than repeal or rewrite Section 230 simply apply the conditions of immunity as prescribe by Section 230.  Similar to the benefits provided by government to a non-profit.  As long as a non-profit adheres to the conditions, such as remaining neutral and not endorsing political candidates for example, they can enjoy the benefits.  They're still free to make their own choices and can chose to endorse a political candidate.  But as soon as they do they are no longer eligible for those benefits.

 

Eligibility requirements, as laid out in Section 230, should apply as well.  If Twitter or other social media companies behave as content providers rather than an interactive computer service then they lose the protections guaranteed by Section 230 and are open to lawsuits.  Fair enough.

 

How to Put a Stop to Twitter’s Game-Playing on Censorship

An opinion piece has no bearing on factual accuracy. What is your source BTW?

[Sujo]

Ratcliffe, the political appointee with no national security experience just came up with a head spinner.

 

Iran are behind the emails being sent by proud boys threatening anyone who doesnt vote for trump.

 

Ratcliffe says these emails were sent to hurt trump. That some serious mental gymnastics.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

You do know trump is tied financially to china dont you.

My comment here is about Biden.  I'm not getting sidetracked by the usual deflections to make Trump the topic instead.

[Berkshire]

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Of course this story is not getting any traction with the MSM, which are most likely the only sources of information you find 'believable.'  This story is radioactive for them since if true it would utterly destroy Biden's bid for president (remember, if Biden Sr. is tied financially or otherwise to countries such as Ukraine and especially China then he becomes a national security risk - the same rationale used by the left to explain how Trump Russian collusion would constitute a national security risk on the part of Trump).

 

Explain this away as misinformation or excuse by any other creative, inventive rationale:

 

Fox News - Laptop connected to Hunter Biden linked to FBI money laundering probe

This fake story is starting to unravel.  It seems some Ukrainian had been trying to sell this story way back last year.  Ukraine has a cottage industry for fake news that can be had for a price.

 

[Explicit photos and emails purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden were circulating in Ukraine last year at the same time that Rudy Giuliani was searching for dirt there on former Vice President Joe Biden, two people approached about the material during that period tell TIME.]

 

[In an interview with TIME, a second person described an offer that was made to him in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, in mid-September 2019. This person declined the offer, he says, and only recalled it in detail when familiar-looking material was published in the New York Post last week. This person alleges that the people offering this material had a buyer in mind for it: they said they wanted to sell it to Republican allies of President Trump. Their asking price was $5 million, he says, adding: “I walked away from it, because it smelled awful.”]

 

https://time.com/5902557/hunter-biden-rudy-giuliani-ukraine/

 

[Eric Loh]

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Of course this story is not getting any traction with the MSM, which are most likely the only sources of information you find 'believable.'  This story is radioactive for them since if true it would utterly destroy Biden's bid for president (remember, if Biden Sr. is tied financially or otherwise to countries such as Ukraine and especially China then he becomes a national security risk - the same rationale used by the left to explain how Trump Russian collusion would constitute a national security risk on the part of Trump).

 

Explain this away as misinformation or excuse by any other creative, inventive rationale:

 

Fox News - Laptop connected to Hunter Biden linked to FBI money laundering probe

Even Fox refused to publish the information after Rudy approached them. They see that as radioactive and declined. 

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

An opinion piece has no bearing on factual accuracy. What is your source BTW?

It's an article offering a suggestion on how to prevent social media companies, specifically Twitter, from gaming Section 230.  Nothing more and nothing less.  So I don't see how you're comment, opinion and no fact, applies.  I linked to the article.  What other source are you referring to?

[Damual Travesty]

It seems like there is a far bigger story here then what Donald Trump has said in response to the real story. Is there no post here about the actual story from the NY post? Not even a summary? Is there a news blackout on this or something?

 

No coverage of the DNI statement regarding this? Or Adam Schiff statement? Where are all the Professional American experts who regularly post here demanding more information on the story? On the sources? On what is on the lap top etc? On what it means? On criminal implications?

 

This is it? A paragraph of Donald Trump venting his anger on the story being censored by tech giants? That is all that Reuters had?  Seriously? The other Networks in the USA seem to have zero coverage of the story. The reason is that coverage creates a paper trail and a visual clip trail as well on U -tube. That means that you can only find commentary from Fox or OAN etc, and we are not allowed to post any of that here.

 

This is all rather strange.

[Damual Travesty]

18 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Even Fox refused to publish the information after Rudy approached them. They see that as radioactive and declined. 

What are you trying to say Eric? Is it your contention that the laptop is somehow not real? Are the email faked? Is the shop owner who took the laptop in a Russian agent? What is it about the story itself that you are finding to be not true? What is it in the story that is "radioactive" ?

 

The story has broke. It's out. The Democrats and media tried to blame this on Russian dis-information. The DNI backed up by US intel services have stated clearly, matter of factly that no such intelligence exists concerning this laptop.

 

The questions now are only, related to what clarity Joe Biden can provide as what these emails mean, and what else is on the laptop, and why isn't the media investigating what would be the obvious questions which are related to following the money, Joe Biden's assets, bank account flows etc.

 

Were almost at the point right now, where it may be a good idea for Joe Biden to resign his candidacy. I mean how much more can come out, and at what point will all of you simply throw up you hands and admit you have no further defense of this man?

[Damual Travesty]

26 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

This fake story is starting to unravel.  It seems some Ukrainian had been trying to sell this story way back last year.  Ukraine has a cottage industry for fake news that can be had for a price.

 

[Explicit photos and emails purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden were circulating in Ukraine last year at the same time that Rudy Giuliani was searching for dirt there on former Vice President Joe Biden, two people approached about the material during that period tell TIME.]

 

[In an interview with TIME, a second person described an offer that was made to him in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, in mid-September 2019. This person declined the offer, he says, and only recalled it in detail when familiar-looking material was published in the New York Post last week. This person alleges that the people offering this material had a buyer in mind for it: they said they wanted to sell it to Republican allies of President Trump. Their asking price was $5 million, he says, adding: “I walked away from it, because it smelled awful.”]

 

https://time.com/5902557/hunter-biden-rudy-giuliani-ukraine/

 

The story is not unraviling. It is not fake. This is a really bad attempt to make such a claim. Time is not on your side. Everyday something new comes out and the obviousness of having an agenda which becomes simply an agenda against the truth becomes more apparent.

[Berkshire]

2 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

Everyday something new comes out and the obviousness of having an agenda which becomes simply an agenda against the truth becomes more apparent.

I get that and I see it every day.  Every single time Trump opens his mouth, his "agenda against the truth becomes more apparent."

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

What are you trying to say Eric? Is it your contention that the laptop is somehow not real? Are the email faked? Is the shop owner who took the laptop in a Russian agent? What is it about the story itself that you are finding to be not true? What is it in the story that is "radioactive" ?

 

The story has broke. It's out. The Democrats and media tried to blame this on Russian dis-information. The DNI backed up by US intel services have stated clearly, matter of factly that no such intelligence exists concerning this laptop.

 

The questions now are only, related to what clarity Joe Biden can provide as what these emails mean, and what else is on the laptop, and why isn't the media investigating what would be the obvious questions which are related to following the money, Joe Biden's assets, bank account flows etc.

 

Were almost at the point right now, where it may be a good idea for Joe Biden to resign his candidacy. I mean how much more can come out, and at what point will all of you simply throw up you hands and admit you have no further defense of this man?

Why should joe biden clarify the meaning of something he didnt write on a laptop he didnt own.

 

The shop owner is a trump supporter that likes conspiracy theories and gave conflicting stories about the laptop. Even the reporter of the new york times who wrote the story refused to put his name to it.

 

What you are stating as facts are not facts. I suggest you do more reading about it, its out there, its not suppressed.

[Sujo]

11 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

The story is not unraviling. It is not fake. This is a really bad attempt to make such a claim. Time is not on your side. Everyday something new comes out and the obviousness of having an agenda which becomes simply an agenda against the truth becomes more apparent.

What evidence do you have that its not fake.

 

The red flags for me are that the repair man cannot confirm hunter dropped it off because he is nearly blind. He also sent the hard drive to rudy, who has sat on it for months.

 

The emails and pics are screenshots and pdf, which does not allow metadata to authenticate them. Without that metadata nothing can be confirmed.

[Damual Travesty]

Just now, Sujo said:

What evidence do you have that its not fake.

 

The red flags for me are that the repair man cannot confirm hunter dropped it off because he is nearly blind. He also sent the hard drive to rudy, who has sat on it for months.

 

The emails and pics are screenshots and pdf, which does not allow metadata to authenticate them. Without that metadata nothing can be confirmed.

I am simply going to let you keep making posts like this while I sit back and laugh. Heartily laugh. A Santa Claus laugh. A side splitting laugh. A I need a drink of water laugh.

 

I will revisit this in a few days. In the meantime, I ask that you sit and quietly contemplate what is truth, and why it matters far more then what political side you are on. I said earlier, I expect Biden will resign his candidacy soon. A face saving measure to spare himself and his family further humiliation or legal action against them. Just a hunch.

[Damual Travesty]

23 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

I get that and I see it every day.  Every single time Trump opens his mouth, his "agenda against the truth becomes more apparent."

You have only one response as usual which is an insult against Donald J Trump, but honestly, that defence does not really work very well with regard to explaining away the Hunter Biden laptop and its contents.  I hope he resigns his candidacy soon and spares his Country further pain. It would be the honourable thing to do now.

[Eric Loh]

26 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

What are you trying to say Eric? Is it your contention that the laptop is somehow not real? Are the email faked? Is the shop owner who took the laptop in a Russian agent? What is it about the story itself that you are finding to be not true? What is it in the story that is "radioactive" ?

 

The story has broke. It's out. The Democrats and media tried to blame this on Russian dis-information. The DNI backed up by US intel services have stated clearly, matter of factly that no such intelligence exists concerning this laptop.

 

The questions now are only, related to what clarity Joe Biden can provide as what these emails mean, and what else is on the laptop, and why isn't the media investigating what would be the obvious questions which are related to following the money, Joe Biden's assets, bank account flows etc.

 

Were almost at the point right now, where it may be a good idea for Joe Biden to resign his candidacy. I mean how much more can come out, and at what point will all of you simply throw up you hands and admit you have no further defense of this man?

Nobody even Fox take Rudy's information at face value. Fox had credibility concerns and view the information as sketchy. Worsen by Rudy's insistence that he wanted a publisher to not vet the information. Eventually a staff reporter at NYP reported it. Somehow you expecting beyond hope this will rattle the election. Fantasy mate. Dream on. 

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2020/10/fox-news-refused-to-publish-giulianis-sketchy-hunter-biden-emails-story/

[Damual Travesty]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Nobody even Fox take Rudy's information at face value. Fox had credibility concerns and view the information as sketchy. Worsen by Rudy's insistence that he wanted a publisher to not vet the information. Eventually a staff reporter at NYP reported it. Somehow you expecting beyond hope this will rattle the election. Fantasy mate. Dream on. 

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2020/10/fox-news-refused-to-publish-giulianis-sketchy-hunter-biden-emails-story/

Tell you what, you hang on to your "this is not real" theory, and we can revisit this in a few more days.

[Eric Loh]

3 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

Tell you what, you hang on to your "this is not real" theory, and we can revisit this in a few more days.

In a few days, this 'news' will fizzled out when no traction made. Even Barr is not interested. Among other Trump's surprises that he hope might resuscitate his election chances that have sputtered out are his pre=election vaccine to a massive new stimulus package and in between a damning trove of DOJ findings. Don't lose sleep over this mate.  

[Damual Travesty]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

In a few days, this 'news' will fizzled out when no traction made. Even Barr is not interested. Among other Trump's surprises that he hope might resuscitate his election chances that have sputtered out are his pre=election vaccine to a massive new stimulus package and in between a damning trove of DOJ findings. Don't lose sleep over this mate.  

Sure thing "mate" I won't lose any sleep over this. As I said you hang on to your theory. Talk to ya later.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Of course this story is not getting any traction with the MSM, which are most likely the only sources of information you find 'believable.'  This story is radioactive for them since if true it would utterly destroy Biden's bid for president (remember, if Biden Sr. is tied financially or otherwise to countries such as Ukraine and especially China then he becomes a national security risk - the same rationale used by the left to explain how Trump Russian collusion would constitute a national security risk on the part of Trump).

 

Explain this away as misinformation or excuse by any other creative, inventive rationale:

 

Fox News - Laptop connected to Hunter Biden linked to FBI money laundering probe

This fake story is starting to unravel.  It seems some Ukrainian had been trying to sell this story way back last year.  Ukraine has a cottage industry for fake news that can be had for a price.

 

[Explicit photos and emails purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden were circulating in Ukraine last year at the same time that Rudy Giuliani was searching for dirt there on former Vice President Joe Biden, two people approached about the material during that period tell TIME.]

 

[In an interview with TIME, a second person described an offer that was made to him in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, in mid-September 2019. This person declined the offer, he says, and only recalled it in detail when familiar-looking material was published in the New York Post last week. This person alleges that the people offering this material had a buyer in mind for it: they said they wanted to sell it to Republican allies of President Trump. Their asking price was $5 million, he says, adding: “I walked away from it, because it smelled awful.”]

 

https://time.com/5902557/hunter-biden-rudy-giuliani-ukraine/

 

LOL.  Did you even read the article?  There's no, as in zero, supporting facts to any of this contrived story line.

 

The article opens by alleging (as in no evidence) that photos of Hunter and his emails had been circulating in Ukraine last year at the same time Giuliani was there . . . "two (unnamed and unknown) people approached about the material during that period tell TIME."  Note the insinuation, without evidence, that just as these photos and emails happened to be floating around Giuliani was there.  Do you see how they're trying to link the two together (again, keep in mind . . . no evidence).  Question:  if indeed photos and emails of Hunter were circulating so prolifically why has no one ever produce them over the past year?  Did the authors of the article try to procure some of these widely available documents for their article?

 

The article next makes mention that Giuliani did not respond to request for comment regarding the origin of the documents he obtained.  Suggestively adding doubt as to the veracity of the material since, OMG, Rudy refused? to comment to Time magazine reporters.  (I'd blow them off, too.)

 

Moving on the article mentions that leaked communications have become so common that the government is planning on passing specific legislation and a link is provided.  Note that the linked article talks specifically and only about secretly recorded conversations.  Notice how the article uses "communications" rather than "secretly recorded conversations" as if to attempt to broaden the scope so as to suggest email "communication" as well.

 

The next paragraph gets into the two people contacted by Time and that they couldn't confirm whether these offered emails allegedly from Hunter were real, wouldn't identify the source, and couldn't confirm whether those offered emails were the same as the emails revealed now from Hunter's laptop.  No mention of whether they had accepted the offered emails from their unnamed source.  I would assume not since they would, or should have been asked to produce them by the Time reporters.  Anyway, this paragraph reveals no provable evidence, names no names, and begs the question of why this totally useless info (story) is even included in the article.

 

Next we have the report that neither Hunter or Joe's campaign have declined to comment.  Of course we know that no comment has been made by Hunter (does anyone even know his whereabouts?) but the article mentions that a person familiar with the situation has claimed that Hunter is trying to figure out where the emails came from.  Again, unnamed, unknown people making unprovable claims.  Just take it all on faith folks.

 

The article goes on and on with nothing more than hinting at unnamed, unknown sources, speculative story lines, innuendo and suggestive 'leading by the nose' type writing.

 

And from this article you make the statement that, "This fake story is starting to unravel?"  Please provide some actual evidence to what you say, not simply a valueless article.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Even Fox refused to publish the information after Rudy approached them. They see that as radioactive and declined. 

Whether Fox did or didn't is neither here nor there.  A completely trivial point as they are now pursuing it rigorously.  If you're suggesting that Fox may have originally declined to publish this story because "even Fox thought it was BS" you might want to be aware that both Fox and the New York Post are Murdoch owned media outlets.

[stevenl]

52 minutes ago, Sujo said:

What evidence do you have that its not fake.

 

The red flags for me are that the repair man cannot confirm hunter dropped it off because he is nearly blind. He also sent the hard drive to rudy, who has sat on it for months.

 

The emails and pics are screenshots and pdf, which does not allow metadata to authenticate them. Without that metadata nothing can be confirmed.

Don't forget the recent Time information this story has been for sale in Ukraine for a long time.

[Tippaporn]

55 minutes ago, Sujo said:

What evidence do you have that its not fake.

 

The red flags for me are that the repair man cannot confirm hunter dropped it off because he is nearly blind. He also sent the hard drive to rudy, who has sat on it for months.

 

The emails and pics are screenshots and pdf, which does not allow metadata to authenticate them. Without that metadata nothing can be confirmed.

Sujo, both the FBI, the DOJ and the DNI have stated that this is not Russian disinfo.  At some point you just have to give it up and accept the truth.

 

Also:

 

Fox News - Laptop connected to Hunter Biden linked to FBI money laundering probe

 

Yes, the true information is out there as well as all of the made up stories being propagated by the MSM.  Perhaps you'll only accept the truth as they put cuffs on Hunter and Joe.  Personally, I don't think you'd be wiling to accept it even then.  The narrative will simply change to a corrupt Barr and DOJ as the explanation.

[spidermike007]

The fake Hunter Biden story is almost comical. So much nonsense. And all of this is.comimg from Raging Rudy. A completely discredited man.

 

It alleges that someone delivered three laptops to a computer repair store in Delaware. The owner of that store thinks the man who delivered the computers was Hunter Biden, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden. But he can’t be sure it was Hunter Biden. Or maybe he can. He’s very confused about how this all went down. Anyway, the owner says he made copies of the hard drives and somehow sent the content, which he deemed suspicious, to some undetermined law enforcement agency and to the former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s personal lawyers. It’s all very unclear how and why such a transaction happened – if at all. Was that even legal? If it happened. 

 

Among the pilfered emails (sound familiar?) was at least one that seemed to suggest that the then vice-president could arrange a meeting with a business associate of Hunter’s in Ukraine. You might remember that Hunter’s Ukraine business involvement was the subject of the phone call that Trump made to the president of Ukraine to get him to announce an investigation of the Bidens. This call is what triggered Trump’s impeachment.

 

Vice-President Biden says he has never met with anyone affiliated with Hunter Biden’s business and there is no evidence even in the new New York Post story that he did.

 

So, basically, we are dealing with a third-rate, bungled pile of nonsense here. What’s a social media company to do? Platforms like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have three choices when they flag potentially troublesome content. They can keep their hands off and let their users and algorithms do with the content what they wish to do, risking amplification.

 

This was the standard method of dealing with hate speech, misinformation and propaganda for most of the history of these companies. Second, they can choose to keep the problematic posts up on the service but “dial down” the amplifying power of the algorithms, slowing distribution, giving their staff time to research the posts and consider if further action is needed. This is almost always the wisest move.

 

Third, platforms could choose to block or purge an item completely. Given the scale of Facebook (2.7 billion users), YouTube (2 billion users), and Twitter (330 million users), deleting an item might seem like a major problem for the free flow of information. But it’s not. The original source remains untouched and accessible to most of the world. Nonetheless, by making this harshest of choices the platforms expose themselves to vitriol and risk generating the sort of backlash that can energize paranoid, conspiratorial movements like Q-Anon or Trump supporters.

 

Content moderation, the term of art for such policies and decisions, is a fool’s game. A company can’t win the public relations battle no matter what it does. Companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google don’t owe anyone a commitment to publish and promote their expressions. They need not defend free speech.

 

There are frequent calls for these companies to be more transparent and consistent in their moderation policies. But that’s expecting too much. Given the varieties of human expressions and cruelties, it seems impossible to predict all the different problems that might spring up that threaten people’s health, safety or democracy.

 

Either way, content moderation is necessary. Nobody should want massive systems of content distribution to foster Holocuast denial or call for violence against ethnic groups. Some of these questions feel easy (although for some reason, blocking Holocaust denial seemed like a hard choice for Mark Zuckerberg, raising some serious questions about his capacity for basic moral judgment). Most of them are hard.

 

Now, the unhinged Rudy has alleged there were underage images on the laptop. A desperado attempts to please his master. Anything for a vote. 

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Don't forget the recent Time information this story has been for sale in Ukraine for a long time.

 

Read my previous reply which exposes yet another misleading article which cannot prove anything it claims to suggest.

 

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  Did you even read the article?  There's no, as in zero, supporting facts to any of this contrived story line.

 

The article opens by alleging (as in no evidence) that photos of Hunter and his emails had been circulating in Ukraine last year at the same time Giuliani was there . . . "two (unnamed and unknown) people approached about the material during that period tell TIME."  Note the insinuation, without evidence, that just as these photos and emails happened to be floating around Giuliani was there.  Do you see how they're trying to link the two together (again, keep in mind . . . no evidence).  Question:  if indeed photos and emails of Hunter were circulating so prolifically why has no one ever produce them over the past year?  Did the authors of the article try to procure some of these widely available documents for their article?

 

The article next makes mention that Giuliani did not respond to request for comment regarding the origin of the documents he obtained.  Suggestively adding doubt as to the veracity of the material since, OMG, Rudy refused? to comment to Time magazine reporters.  (I'd blow them off, too.)

 

Moving on the article mentions that leaked communications have become so common that the government is planning on passing specific legislation and a link is provided.  Note that the linked article talks specifically and only about secretly recorded conversations.  Notice how the article uses "communications" rather than "secretly recorded conversations" as if to attempt to broaden the scope so as to suggest email "communication" as well.

 

The next paragraph gets into the two people contacted by Time and that they couldn't confirm whether these offered emails allegedly from Hunter were real, wouldn't identify the source, and couldn't confirm whether those offered emails were the same as the emails revealed now from Hunter's laptop.  No mention of whether they had accepted the offered emails from their unnamed source.  I would assume not since they would, or should have been asked to produce them by the Time reporters.  Anyway, this paragraph reveals no provable evidence, names no names, and begs the question of why this totally useless info (story) is even included in the article.

 

Next we have the report that neither Hunter or Joe's campaign have declined to comment.  Of course we know that no comment has been made by Hunter (does anyone even know his whereabouts?) but the article mentions that a person familiar with the situation has claimed that Hunter is trying to figure out where the emails came from.  Again, unnamed, unknown people making unprovable claims.  Just take it all on faith folks.

 

The article goes on and on with nothing more than hinting at unnamed, unknown sources, speculative story lines, innuendo and suggestive 'leading by the nose' type writing.

 

And from this article you make the statement that, "This fake story is starting to unravel?"  Please provide some actual evidence to what you say, not simply a valueless article.

 

[Eric Loh]

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Whether Fox did or didn't is neither here nor there.  A completely trivial point as they are now pursuing it rigorously.  If you're suggesting that Fox may have originally declined to publish this story because "even Fox thought it was BS" you might want to be aware that both Fox and the New York Post are Murdoch owned media outlets.

Only a Murdoch owned tabloid media outlet will publish unvetted report without the author name.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Only a Murdoch owned tabloid media outlet will publish unvetted report without the author name.

Where's your evidence that it wasn't vetted?  Making that up?  The New York Post is a mere tabloid (4th largest publication in circulation founded in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton)?  Is that true?  Are you making that up to suit yourself as well?  You folks never quit, do you?

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Where's your evidence that it wasn't vetted?  Making that up?  The New York Post is a tabloid (4th largest publication in circulation)?  Is that true?  Are you making that up to suit yourself as well?  You folks never quit, do you?

 

Accusing members of ‘making stuff up’ in your efforts to defend a completely fabricated smear attempt.