Bari Weiss should be given a listen to

[RIROCKHOUND]

Or, since the FBI did not warn about the ‘Laptop’ they were warning more generally about Russian disinformation. Both things (that there was a laptop in the FBI possession AND that there was a likely chance of Russian disinformation possibly coming) can be true.

If in any other time, Rudy (in his present form) came out and said this legally blind computer repair guy (who has turned into a crackpot in his own right from what I have seen when he has been interviewed) has a laptop he claims is Hunter Biden’s in the weeks leading up to an election. What reasonable person wouldn’t have serious misgivings about the origin of the story? At the time I didnt know if I believed Russia, but it was certainly reasonable to think it was a plant. That has been proven wrong, and it clearly was Hunters, however many of the documents out there (including emails) have missing or altered metadata which makes it damn hard to believe anything on there that is out in the Twitterverse.


You are right though, the FBI (Under Barr, who up until the end was a ball washing Trump loyalist) had the laptop and did nothing. So either, A., Deep State wanted Trump out OR B., there is a lot of #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up personal stuff about Hunter on there, but nothing criminal/Biden corruption. Which do you think it is?

My vote is B. Hunter is a dirtbag and there is a lot of personal stuff on there, but had there been any ‘there, there’ we would have heard about it before the DOJ changed out of Trump’s control.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Or, since the FBI did not warn about the ‘Laptop’ they were warning more generally about Russian disinformation. Both things (that there was a laptop in the FBI possession AND that there was a likely chance of Russian disinformation possibly coming) can be true.

If in any other time, Rudy (in his present form) came out and said this legally blind computer repair guy (who has turned into a crackpot in his own right from what I have seen when he has been interviewed) has a laptop he claims is Hunter Biden’s in the weeks leading up to an election. What reasonable person wouldn’t have serious misgivings about the origin of the story? At the time I didnt know if I believed Russia, but it was certainly reasonable to think it was a plant. That has been proven wrong, and it clearly was Hunters, however many of the documents out there (including emails) have missing or altered metadata which makes it damn hard to believe anything on there that is out in the Twitterverse.


You are right though, the FBI (Under Barr, who up until the end was a ball washing Trump loyalist) had the laptop and did nothing. So either, A., Deep State wanted Trump out OR B., there is a lot of #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up personal stuff about Hunter on there, but nothing criminal/Biden corruption. Which do you think it is?

My vote is B. Hunter is a dirtbag and there is a lot of personal stuff on there, but had there been any ‘there, there’ we would have heard about it before the DOJ changed out of Trump’s control.

you also left out, somewhat conveniently, that zuckerberg admits it was wrong to ban it.

i agree on reflexive doubts on the laptop. But the NY Post reported in it, and sourced it. They weren’t just taking anyone’s word for it. Their twitter account was banned for posting a story that was accurate. and again that’s not illegal, but we should admit what happened.

nobody had to take rudy’s ( and i agree his current form is a pathetic shell of his 9/11 days) word for it. But There was zero evidence that the NY Posts reporting was bogus. But your side didn’t like it, so they all claimed it as russian disinformation.

Bryan they reported accurately, and were accused of spreading russian disinformation. If you’re going to a accuse someone of that, shouldn’t you have some speck of proof?

I am truly glad you come out here sometimes. You and Paul are the only ones left of center cap or of discussing things with.

And i don’t know which it is, which is why i hope the hearings reveal which it is.

I’m suspicious of Buntwrs success in ukraine, of all places, and at all times. Had to be the one country that daddy was our point man on. that’s either a huge coincidence, or not a coincidence. which do you think it is?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you also left out, somewhat conveniently, that zuckerberg admits it was wrong to ban it.

i agree on reflexive doubts on the laptop. But the NY Post reported in it, and sourced it. They weren’t just taking anyone’s word for it. Their twitter account was banned for posting a story that was accurate. and again that’s not illegal, but we should admit what happened.

nobody had to take rudy’s ( and i agree his current form is a pathetic shell of his 9/11 days) word for it. But There was zero evidence that the NY Posts reporting was bogus. But your side didn’t like it, so they all claimed it as russian disinformation.

Bryan they reported accurately, and were accused of spreading russian disinformation. If you’re going to a accuse someone of that, shouldn’t you have some speck of proof?

Yup.
They got it wrong (I did say it was proven false above).
The difference is, I see it (and read the Taibbi stuff with a huge grin of salt) as uncertainty of the source and 'CYA' not some grand plan to oust Trump. But we all have our biases on how we see it.

(You missed my question about the laptop and the FBI....)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yup.
They got it wrong (I did say it was proven false above).
The difference is, I see it (and read the Taibbi stuff with a huge grin of salt) as uncertainty of the source and 'CYA' not some grand plan to oust Trump. But we all have our biases on how we see it.

(You missed my question about the laptop and the FBI....)

but it’s not just that they banned it when they shouldn’t have. they accused those who wanted to discuss it, if knowingly spreading russian disinformation. They made that accusation knowing there was no basis for it. Not one of them has been asked to defend that.

what was your question?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yup.
They got it wrong (I did say it was proven false above).
The difference is, I see it (and read the Taibbi stuff with a huge grin of salt) as uncertainty of the source and 'CYA' not some grand plan to oust Trump. But we all have our biases on how we see it.

(You missed my question about the laptop and the FBI....)

and you’re right about biases. but geez, how many of these mistakes benefit the right, and how many benefit the left? isn’t there a pattern there? Ferguson MO, Freddy Gray, Duke lacrosse case, Nick Sandman, Rittenhouse, the rolling stone fake rape accusation…

What was the FBIs evidence that there was actual
russian disinformation regarding hunter? did big tech ban any stories that actually were russian disinformation? or did they only ban the laptop story? those are sincere questions.