Anybody Else A Bit Concerned About The Hunter Biden Scandal?

[Tambourine]

Just imagine the headlines and the shrieking if it was a Trump family laptop showing his family members making millions selling access to similar kinds of people. The response would be totally different.

Yes, it would be the exact reverse, with right-wing news and 'tubers telling everyone it's no big deal and nobody was hurt, and insinuating that, in fact, the fake news lying press were the traitors all along, possibly aided by Antifa and/or George Soros.

We know this for a fact because things have been playing out this exact way multiple times in the US over the last four years.

 

[Milton Platt]

It just gets darker and darker with every passing moment. Below is a link to the Gateway Pundit. I will give you advance warning that the video of Hunter is very risque. Click at your own risk. I personally have seen better porn.

"China’s GTV loaded video of Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden smoking crack cocaine while engaging in sex with an unknown person."

You cannot rant about Hunter Biden (who is not even running for office) while ignoring all the cr*p Trump has been involved in.

 

[metis]

And the implications that Biden's political office might have been leveraged for financial gain?

You mean like Ivanka's?

 

[tytlyf]

You cannot rant about Hunter Biden (who is not even running for office) while ignoring all the cr*p Trump has been involved in.

Don't forget about Jared Kushner, so corrupt with his globalist connections he can't get a security clearance.

 

[Yerda]

If you're inclined to listen to Matt Taibbi, and I am, then there is a scandal here.

With the Hunter Biden Expose, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than The Actual Story

As has been hinted at by several prominent journalists, controversies erupted within newsrooms across New York and Washington in the last week. Editors have been telling charges that any effort to determine whether or not the Biden laptop material is true, or to ask the Biden campaign to confirm or deny the story, will either not be allowed or put through heightened fact-checking procedures.

On the other hand, if you want to assert without any evidence at all that the New York Post story is Russian interference, you can essentially go straight into print.

Many people on the liberal side of the political aisle don’t have a problem with this, focused as they are on the upcoming Trump-Biden election. But this same press corps might be weeks away from assuming responsibility for challenging a Biden administration. If they’ve already calculated once that a true story may be buried for political reasons because the other “side” is worse, they will surely make that same calculation again.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If you're inclined to listen to Matt Taibbi, and I am, then there is a scandal here.

With the Hunter Biden Expose, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than The Actual Story

I have some problems with this article.

I do not want to defend Hunter or even Joe Biden, especially when we don’t have all the facts yet. I also don’t want to ignore the fact that the existence of giant social media platforms, like Twitter, raises important questions about censorship.

Having said that ... I find this article a bit odd.

First, the article ignores the reason Twitter took action against the NYPost story - because it violated the rules. You have to acknowledge that NYPost went beyond just reporting the story like a normal, ethical news outlet. NYP is a RW tabloid and actually published unredacted emails showing personal contact information and photos showing children.

That was content not necessary to report the story - the personal details could have been redacted while still showing the parts that are newsworthy.

If I find someone else’s laptop, can I put photos of them and their kids on Twitter without their permission? According to Twitter, that’s against the rules. This seems like a reasonable rule. NYP broke that rule.

I suspect the reason NYP published the unnecessary personal content from an apparently stolen laptop, rather than reporting the meat of the story and why readers should care after verifying its authenticity, is twofold:

(1) without seeing that content, it’s less convincing; the reader can only judge authenticity from the claim that Rudy Giuliani happened to obtain Hunter’s laptop and handed it to Trump’s friends at the NYPost two weeks before the election. The reader would have to judge the significance of the story by actually reading quotes from the emails, and how they were obtained. The fact is, those quotes are not quite smoking guns, and the manner in which NYP obtained the information raises questions about its authenticity and whether it lacks context.

(2) NYPost is kind of slimy and not concerned with either the ethical questions around publishing the content OR chasing down the origins of the laptop to make authenticity more convincing on paper.

Contrast the NYP article to the NYT “black ledger” article that Matt Taibbi mentioned. The NYT didn’t just dox Paul Manafort by publishing unredacted personal information and photos of his children stolen from a personal laptop. They actually did the work of journalism. They collected source material from multiple, independent sources to corroborate the story and provided context for why it was significant. And they did it in an ethical and responsible manner. If NYPost had done that work, they wouldn’t have needed to just regurgitate what Rudy handed them. But that’s what they did. Rudy may as well have written the article.

When Matt Taibbi calls both the NYP article on Hunter, and the NYT article on the black ledger “exposes”, he is making a very spurious comparison. The NYT did an actual “expose” on the black ledger. The NYP simply published, uncritically, what Rudy Giuliani handed them two weeks before an election. So while the NYT did actual reporting, NYP simply acted as a distribution arm of the Trump campaign.

Incidentally, while doing this, NYP also violated Twitters seemingly reasonable rules on publishing “hacked” content.

So, while I can’t pretend that Twitter ought to be the arbiter of what gets disseminated, it’s hard to say the NYP has a right to publish on someone else’s platform when they violate the rules AND they are not doing real journalism. NYP has their own platform where they can disseminate their RW tabloid content.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Exactly. And I don't judge a father by the son, nor do I judge a son by the father. Hunter isn't on the ballot. Joe is. But I can only assume they have nothing on Joe, so they target his son. Who is not running.

They would not have been involved had it not been with the influence of daddy Biden. His clammy hands were involved in some capacity.

Remember, he's the "Big Guy". The tentacles of the deep state network have just started to garner attention and likely goes much deeper from there.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They would not have been involved had it not been with the influence of daddy Biden. His clammy hands were involved in some capacity.

Even Putin said he's not aware of anything illegal that went on.
And, so why aren't you crucifying Trump who handed government jobs our to his family like Opera gives out cars? And what of those security clearances they didn't need? They haven't found evidence of what's alleged. We know Trump hired his kids.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

They would not have been involved had it not been with the influence of daddy Biden. His clammy hands were involved in some capacity.

Remember, he's the "Big Guy". The tentacles of the deep state network have just started to garner attention and likely goes much deeper from there.

As Mitt Romney said when he voted to remove Trump from office, Hunter Biden using his father’s name to get exorbitant compensation is unsavory, but not a crime.

Joe having an unsavory son is, at a minimum, tragic. And not the first family tragedy in Joe’s life, as we all know. But having an unsavory son is also not a crime - or even wrong.

Again Fox News reviewed all the evidence and said no evidence Joe was involved in Hunter’s aborted business venture - which itself does not appear to show wrongdoing. Even though it certainly raises the possibility of wrongdoing.

By the way: remember when Donald Trump corruptly used US military aid to bribe / bully Ukraine to investigate the Bidens for political purposes? Remember how the Trump Party said Donald didn’t do it ... then they said, maybe he did it but it can’t be proved ... then they said, it’s been proved but let’s not remove him from office in an election year - let’s let the voters do that?

Remember that?

Yeah. Turns out, this whole time, what the Trump Party MEANT to say was Donald did it, and it wasn’t wrong. We like corruption in a President. Drain the swamp!

 

[Yerda]

First, the article ignores the reason Twitter took action against the NYPost story - because it violated the rules. You have to acknowledge that NYPost went beyond just reporting the story like a normal, ethical news outlet. NYP is a RW tabloid and actually published unredacted emails showing personal contact information and photos showing children.

I didn't see any pictures of children in the article that I read.

Is posting a link to an article that has things in it that twitter doesn't allow on the platform the same as posting those things on the platform?

I'm not really all up to speed on my Biden family gossip. I'd be very surprised if Joe Biden was squeaky clean though I doubt that he's as bent as Trump. And I've no desire to defend the journalistic integrity of the NYP. The idea that facebook and twitter are squashing stories still worries me.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I didn't see any pictures of children in the article that I read.

Is posting a link to an article that has things in it that twitter doesn't allow on the platform the same as posting those things on the platform?

I'm not really all up to speed on my Biden family gossip. I'd be very surprised if Joe Biden was squeaky clean though I doubt that he's as bent as Trump. And I've no desire to defend the journalistic integrity of the NYP. The idea that facebook and twitter are squashing stories still worries me.

Thanks. Yes my understanding is that was Twitter's position - no links to articles disseminating that content. I read the NYP article and one of the things they published was a photo of Hunter, Joe, and some kids (presumably their family?) at what appears to be a fun-run. This came from a laptop and was published without that person's permission. This, and the personal email addresses and phone numbers, were not necessary to convey the meat of the story. But, of course, NYP's goal wasn't really to convey the meat of the story; that was secondary to generating gossip and confusion and damaging the Biden campaign days before the election.

I agree with you that giant social media platforms squashing stories is a concern. What's the answer? Should Twitter allow anything? Do they have to?

 

[Yerda]

Thanks. Yes my understanding is that was Twitter's position - no links to articles disseminating that content. I read the NYP article and one of the things they published was a photo of Hunter, Joe, and some kids (presumably their family?) at what appears to be a fun-run. This came from a laptop and was published without that person's permission. This, and the personal email addresses and phone numbers, were not necessary to convey the meat of the story. But, of course, NYP's goal wasn't really to convey the meat of the story; that was secondary to generating gossip and confusion and damaging the Biden campaign days before the election.

I agree with you that giant social media platforms squashing stories is a concern. What's the answer? Should Twitter allow anything? Do they have to?

I really don't know. I'm not comfortable with this at all.

 

[tytlyf]

I have some problems with this article.

I do not want to defend Hunter or even Joe Biden, especially when we don’t have all the facts yet. I also don’t want to ignore the fact that the existence of giant social media platforms, like Twitter, raises important questions about censorship.

Having said that ... I find this article a bit odd.

First, the article ignores the reason Twitter took action against the NYPost story - because it violated the rules. You have to acknowledge that NYPost went beyond just reporting the story like a normal, ethical news outlet. NYP is a RW tabloid and actually published unredacted emails showing personal contact information and photos showing children.

That was content not necessary to report the story - the personal details could have been redacted while still showing the parts that are newsworthy.

If I find someone else’s laptop, can I put photos of them and their kids on Twitter without their permission? According to Twitter, that’s against the rules. This seems like a reasonable rule. NYP broke that rule.

I suspect the reason NYP published the unnecessary personal content from an apparently stolen laptop, rather than reporting the meat of the story and why readers should care after verifying its authenticity, is twofold:

(1) without seeing that content, it’s less convincing; the reader can only judge authenticity from the claim that Rudy Giuliani happened to obtain Hunter’s laptop and handed it to Trump’s friends at the NYPost two weeks before the election. The reader would have to judge the significance of the story by actually reading quotes from the emails, and how they were obtained. The fact is, those quotes are not quite smoking guns, and the manner in which NYP obtained the information raises questions about its authenticity and whether it lacks context.

(2) NYPost is kind of slimy and not concerned with either the ethical questions around publishing the content OR chasing down the origins of the laptop to make authenticity more convincing on paper.

Contrast the NYP article to the NYT “black ledger” article that Matt Taibbi mentioned. The NYT didn’t just dox Paul Manafort by publishing unredacted personal information and photos of his children stolen from a personal laptop. They actually did the work of journalism. They collected source material from multiple, independent sources to corroborate the story and provided context for why it was significant. And they did it in an ethical and responsible manner. If NYPost had done that work, they wouldn’t have needed to just regurgitate what Rudy handed them. But that’s what they did. Rudy may as well have written the article.

When Matt Taibbi calls both the NYP article on Hunter, and the NYT article on the black ledger “exposes”, he is making a very spurious comparison. The NYT did an actual “expose” on the black ledger. The NYP simply published, uncritically, what Rudy Giuliani handed them two weeks before an election. So while the NYT did actual reporting, NYP simply acted as a distribution arm of the Trump campaign.

Incidentally, while doing this, NYP also violated Twitters seemingly reasonable rules on publishing “hacked” content.

So, while I can’t pretend that Twitter ought to be the arbiter of what gets disseminated, it’s hard to say the NYP has a right to publish on someone else’s platform when they violate the rules AND they are not doing real journalism. NYP has their own platform where they can disseminate their RW tabloid content.

Appears to be a fabrication. Like the Durham report
How a fake persona laid the groundwork for a Hunter Biden conspiracy deluge

 

[Willamena]

It just gets darker and darker with every passing moment. Below is a link to the Gateway Pundit. I will give you advance warning that the video of Hunter is very risque. Click at your own risk. I personally have seen better porn.

Not concerned, nope.

 

[Cooper]

The FBI and DOJ confirmed that Joe Biden was involved in the business meeting with the Chinese Communist Party-owned shell company that gave an interest free loan to the Biden family during his time as Vice President. The VP and his family have to register your foreign contacts. It's the entire basis for the Manafort investigation.

In my opinion, I think the Republicans want Trump out of office cause he messed up the gravy train for everyone, and the blackout and banning of Trump voices and favorable information is perhaps the scariest corporate influence into our US election. The fact that people think the above information is Russian propaganda is astounding to me, because they don't seem to realize that it is that the whole Russian angle in the Biden story is the propaganda. So... we're going to war soon. The stupid will support it, and then they'll get upset that the media blocked out anti-war information that the US government has routinely called "Russian propaganda" in the past. And then they'll realize the one place they had to exchange information counter the U.S. government no longer exists, because it was more important to beat Trump. The CIA has wanted to this for decade.

 

[tytlyf]

The FBI and DOJ confirmed that Joe Biden was involved in the business meeting with the Chinese Communist Party-owned shell company that gave an interest free loan to the Biden family during his time as Vice President. The VP and his family have to register your foreign contacts. It's the entire basis for the Manafort investigation.

In my opinion, I think the Republicans want Trump out of office cause he messed up the gravy train for everyone, and the blackout and banning of Trump voices and favorable information is perhaps the scariest corporate influence into our US election. The fact that people think the above information is Russian propaganda is astounding to me, because they don't seem to realize that it is that the whole Russian angle in the Biden story is the propaganda. So... we're going to war soon. The stupid will support it, and then they'll get upset that the media blocked out anti-war information that the US government has routinely called "Russian propaganda" in the past. And then they'll realize the one place they had to exchange information counter the U.S. government no longer exists, because it was more important to beat Trump. The CIA has wanted to this for decade.

Prove it

The Wall Street Journal reported that Giuliani Partners is one of the entities named in the subpoenas issued to potential witnesses in a case that appears to involve possible money laundering, obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations.

Rudy Giuliani consulting firm eyed in federal subpoenas, report says

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The FBI and DOJ confirmed that Joe Biden was involved in the business meeting with the Chinese Communist Party-owned shell company that gave an interest free loan to the Biden family during his time as Vice President.

Could you please provide a source to back up your assertion? Thank you.

 

[fantome profane]

The FBI and DOJ confirmed that Joe Biden was involved in the business meeting with the Chinese Communist Party-owned shell company that gave an interest free loan to the Biden family during his time as Vice President. The VP and his family have to register your foreign contacts. It's the entire basis for the Manafort investigation.

Could you please provide a source to back up your assertion? Thank you.

And also if you (Cooper) could be more explicit about what exactly you mean by “the Biden family” that would be helpful. Did the bank actually give a loan to the “family”? Do banks do that? Or did they give a loan to a specific individual or organization? And if so, who?

Thank you.

 

[ecco]

It just gets darker and darker with every passing moment. Below is a link to the Gateway Pundit. I will give you advance warning that the video of Hunter is very risque. Click at your own risk. I personally have seen better porn.

It just gets darker and darker with every passing moment. Below is a pic of Salty Booger's avatar. I will give you advance warning that the pic of Salty Booger's avatar is very risque. Look at your own risk.

I guess we now must dig deeper into Salty Booger's avatar's past and see what other dirt we can pick up.


NOTE: I did not receive the damaging pic from a Russian Oligarch by way of a sleazy lawyer.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And also if you (Cooper) could be more explicit about what exactly you mean by “the Biden family” that would be helpful. Did the bank actually give a loan to the “family”? Do banks do that? Or did they give a loan to a specific individual or organization? And if so, who?

Thank you.

Should I brew some coffee while we wait?