Senate To Subpoena Twitter CEO Over Blocking of Disputed Biden Articles (wsj.com) 580
The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to issue a subpoena on Tuesday to Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey after the social-media company blocked a pair of New York Post articles that made new allegations about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, which his campaign has denied. From a report: The subpoena would require the Twitter executive to testify on Oct. 23 before the committee, according to the Republicans who announced the hearing. GOP lawmakers are singling out Twitter because it prevented users from posting links to the articles, which the Post said were based on email exchanges with Hunter Biden, the Democratic candidate's son, provided by allies of President Trump. Those people in turn said they received them from a computer-repair person who found them on a laptop, according to the Post.
"This is election interference, and we are 19 days out from an election," Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), a committee member who discussed the subpoena with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), told reporters. "Never before have we seen active censorship of a major press publication with serious allegations of corruption of one of the two candidates for president."
"This is election interference, and we are 19 days out from an election," Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), a committee member who discussed the subpoena with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), told reporters. "Never before have we seen active censorship of a major press publication with serious allegations of corruption of one of the two candidates for president."
Bizarro Republican World (Score:3, Insightful)
Ted Cruz says it's, "election interference" not allowing them to spread bullshit lies that will affect the outcome of the election?
Reminds me of how Net Neutrality to them, goes against the First Amendment.
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Funny)
A: Because Twitter doesn't allow lies to be published!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only news outlet running the story is a tabloid and the "smoking gun" is an invitation that was sent to Hunter Biden. No evidence of any meetings or cash exchanges, just an email invitation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Where do you get your awful talking points? The email was an invitation, yes, but to a follow-up meeting. It explicitly thanked Hunter for a meeting with Hunter's father. That is what reasonable people call "evidence" of that meeting.
"Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together. Itâ(TM)s realty an honor and pleasure." (Emphasis added, errors in the original.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Insightful)
So far, that's par for the course in international business. Where it starts to stink is when we discover that that American citizen was the son of the sitting vice president who appeared to have received that appointment to the board solely by virtue of being the son of the vice president.
That kind of nepotism looks awkward when the policy of the United States in Ukraine was "anti-corruption." And it looks even more awkward when Joe Biden claims he has had no discussions with Hunter re Ukraine but here is a claim and putative evidence that that was simply a lie.
Joe really looked pathetic during the debate when he said he was proud of Hunter for kicking his drug habit. I really mean that. I felt bad for the guy that he was either believing his son's lies or felt like he had to lie to himself in front of a TV audience like that. And in either case, I just felt like he'd kill for his surviving son.
And while I may empathize with the guy's loyalty and love for his screw up kid, it sure looks like it blinds him to impropriety and possibly criminality. So where else does he put his blind spots?
With Trump, he can't make a move without an eager press investigating all sorts of potentially nefarious motives. With Biden, just like Obama, they're not going to say anything bad about him while he's in office, and possibly after. So what kind of graft and incompetence would we let in with a Biden administration?
Re: Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Insightful)
So what kind of graft and incompetence would we let in with a Biden administration?
I say this as a Republican... better than what we got with Trump.
You are comparing someone who had to work across the fence with a Republican majority for 6 years vs a guy who can't even get stuff done with all branches under his full control for 2 years and mostly under control for 2 more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
considering biden's platform; if he wins i hope he gets nothing done.
but really, he's just a trojan horse to get kamala in office. with her, they'll bring in the wonderful super left stuff that made Sanders unelectable; all under the guise of a milquetoast kindly old gentleman (until you piss him off) who's done nothing other than ride his boss's coattails for 8 years as VP.
And hey, they'll also make it a defacto single party state:
>increase immigration (aka steady stream of blue voters)
>pack the sup
Thing is this is just how things are done (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a transparent attempt to create a Hilary's Emails style October Surprise. And this time the media isn't biting. Nobody is.
I don't care if Biden's son got a little boost from his daddy-o and you shouldn't either. You should care about whether Biden or Trump is going to do a better job running the company.
Joe Biden worked with Obama and multiple epidemiologists to create a "Pande
Re: Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. It's not like the con artist has appointed his daughter or son-in-law to government positions, or family members of other staff are miraculously appointed/hired to positions in the government, or had one of his closest allies meet with a foreign agent [go.com] to dig up dirt on an opponent.
Because the con artist is all about anti-corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the full picture: Emails showing meeting took place. Money exchanged hands to facilitate meeting. Biden
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the email was not an invitation, but follow up thanking for introductions. Something you would send after meeting took place. Also, emails isn't the only evidence - the fact that Hunter Biden was paid HUGE salary without ever contributing anything else is the other part you choose to ignore.
And this differs from every other exec in every other company how?
I'm really serious. People are on boards because companies have to have a certain number of people on the boards, not necessarily because they possess any special abilities or will contribute any particular thing to the board. Far from demonstrating obvious corruption, you've pretty much demonstrated that him being on the board is entirely normal. The only people who will be fooled by your claims are people who have never seen how people at that level of an organization are chosen.
Besides, it's entirely untrue that he didn't contribute anything. He is a lawyer. A lawyer with knowledge of U.S. law serving on the board of a company that frequently deals with the U.S. is contributing to the company by helping them avoid crossing any legal lines that could get them into trouble. The fact that you can't see that as a contribution tells me that you're completely blinded by politics and are desperately looking for a reason to hate VP Biden so that you will feel better about your decision to instead vote for a massively corrupt, grossly incompetent failed businessman whose reckless disregard for the truth has cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their lives.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the email was not an invitation, but follow up thanking for introductions. Something you would send after meeting took place. Also, emails isn't the only evidence - the fact that Hunter Biden was paid HUGE salary without ever contributing anything else is the other part you choose to ignore.
And this differs from every other exec in every other company how?
Having a Vice President father doing your bidding is the corruption, not being a worthless board member while collecting the salary.
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sketchy on the details so don't quote me -- and don't ask me to research YET ANOTHER bit of nonsense;
Other nations had asked that this prosecutor be fired, for NOT prosecuting companies. He was essentially running a protection racket.
And, Hunter's "corrupt" company in Ukraine, I think, was in trouble about two weeks after he joined them -- hardly enough time for him to get in on whatever mayhem they might have been a part of.
And there's that Trip of Biden's around the time Hunter was joined the company.
Re: (Score:2)
The only news outlet running the story is a tabloid and the "smoking gun" is an invitation that was sent to Hunter Biden. No evidence of any meetings or cash exchanges, just an email invitation.
Like that matters.. This is political man.. It's about appearances as all October Surprises are.
Biden will be forced to "explain" this against his categorical denials of his past. As the saying goes, "If you are explaining, you are losing".
The funny part (for me anyway) is how Twitter's attempt to do damage control on this has backfired, elevating this above the fold on the front page, when it was really some "also ran" filler story buried in the back of the politics section. It's at a point now that the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you know they are lies?
a) Because I read the story. It's garbage.
b) Because I looked at the sources. Giuliani, the NY Post, and the psycho repair shop owner (who thinks Hilary Clinton is out to kill him) are completely untrustworthy.
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter says the info is from a "hack". Are you saying the info is fabricated and not from a hack? Which is it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are fishing for a repeat of the last-minute "Her Emails!!!" non-story that gave them them win last time.
I'm done with it. Trump and his people are proven liars and it's not economical to scrutinize and debunk everything they
When it's the NY Post (Score:2)
Oh, and GP attacked the message too. So you're strawmanning anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
The assumption is they didn't have the emails. That doesn't mean the emails are authentic or relevant or anything. But you can't say that a prior conclusion based on available evidence refutes new evidence. That's begging the question.
Ministry of Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
First Amendment protects the "bullshit lies" too... It does not legally apply to Twitter, but the same reasons we don't allow the government to police speech applies to social media companies.
You're aching for a Ministry of Truth, but we don't have such an agency — even if Twitter/Facebook are trying to become one.
If it really is such a "bullshit lie", why block it? The Democratic voters — enlightened superior beings all — will see through it, their voting decision unaffected. What's the worry?
Re: Ministry of Truth (Score:5, Informative)
First Amendment protects the "bullshit lies" too... It does not legally apply to Twitter, but the same reasons we don't allow the government to police speech applies to social media companies.
No, the reasons don't apply to private entities at all. Quite the opposite: private persons and entities have the right to exercise their own editorial discretion. The First Amendment doesn't privilege one private party over another. But it does provide each individual with the right to both choose to speak free of government interference and to choose to not speak free of government interference. This is inclusive of whether to repeat the speech of another and whether to allow oneself to be a conduit for the speech of another.
Re: Ministry of Truth (Score:2, Troll)
Oh do piss off with this private entities talking point.
Fantastic retort. Your constitutional analysis is so deep, so carefully researched and thought out. The Senate should drop the current Supreme Court nominee like a hot potato and instead urge Trump to nominate you; you are obviously the leading legal mind of the era.
These are democrat-controlled corporations that control the flow of information for hundreds of millions of people.
I have no idea who controls them but I would imagine that political party isn't really so much of a factor as is who will protect the fortunes of the managers and major shareholders.
Also, it's the choice of the "hundreds of millions of people" w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they are worried about the soft squishy middle for which all this stuff is new information..
They KNOW that this election is razor close (despite what the polling is claiming) and that a couple thousand votes may make all the difference in the right state. So such a story being introduced is enough to make a difference.
It doesn't actually (Score:2)
Also this isn't a first amendment issue. I don't know how to tell you this but despite what Qannon told you Twitter is not the government, and is not (and this is key) run by a global illuminati of Lizard People. They are in fact a private company, and can make decisions about what content to allow on their privately owned website all by themselves.
You can too. Feel free to start your own Twitter competitor
Re: (Score:2)
Libel is a thing. Also I can't advertise outright lies. I can't tell you my soap cures cancer.
Also this isn't a first amendment issue. I don't know how to tell you this but despite what Qannon told you Twitter is not the government, and is not (and this is key) run by a global illuminati of Lizard People. They are in fact a private company, and can make decisions about what content to allow on their privately owned website all by themselves.
Twitter is not the government but they are protected under S230 by the government. They could lose that protection.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And applying these different standards is exactly why this is considered election interference.
Censorship: you should oppose it (Score:2, Insightful)
Facebook and Twitter shouldn't get to decide what news reporting voters are allowed to see.
Facebook and Twitter weren’t standing next to Biden that day when he met with the Ukrainians or didn't meet with the Ukrainians. We’re you standing there? I don't think you were.
If the info is false, refute it with facts. Hiding info is anti-democratic.
Re:Censorship: you should oppose it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ted Cruz says it's, "election interference" not allowing them to spread bullshit lies that will affect the outcome of the election?
Reminds me of how Net Neutrality to them, goes against the First Amendment.
And the fallout from Twitter's stupid move continues. Cruz is just doing what politicians do.
Face it, Twitter screwed up and made this classic "October Surprise" a story with actual legs. It would have been a quick flash by the NYP, but No, Twitter couldn't let that happen and now look... This story will go on and on, round and round, regardless of the veracity of the purported evidence. Republicans will keep batting it into the air and the press won't be able to avoid watching the bounding ball. We
Re: (Score:2)
The real scandal is why one set of rules applies to Left smears and completely other set of rules applies to Right smears?
Re: (Score:2)
Quite true, though I'm thinking that Twitter was put in a no-win situation. FB and Twitter both declared they'd not carry anything that would influence the election, which these emails being broadcast would certainly come under.
Now they're in the situation of whether to block it as "Unsubstantiated, and not yet factual", in which case they'd be doing generally what they said they'd do, or letting it go through and making a mockery of what they'd said they'd do (which they'd have been hauled over the coals
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah man. Here's how it works: what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. You are the ones making an extraordinary claim, you need to provide the proof. The article provides no proof of any wrongdoing. In fact, the Republican report says as much: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
So YOU are the one who needs to provide proof. Otherwise,, the rest of us are free to ignore your allegations.
This is just more of the same Republican smear tactics, like Benghazi, Hillary's emails, Obama's alleged election interference, it is a huge nothingburger just designed to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It only works on low-information voters, who vaguely remember "Hey, didn't they find some dirt on Biden's son?" The fact is, no. They did not find any dirt. But people remember the allegations because the whole mess is designed to be confusing and vague. Again, just like the other manufactured scandals.
The media now knows this crap can blow up (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Here's how it works: what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. You are the ones making an extraordinary claim, you need to provide the proof.
That's not how it works. The actual quote is: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
Those emails are evidence of Joe Biden lying about having a meeting he denies happened. The fact that they come with embarrassing photos the Biden's wouldn't want made public lends them credibility.
Demanding proof is just moving the goal post. The media and twitter have never had an issue with publishing things without proof. Indeed they have been more than happy to publish claims
Re: (Score:3)
Neither meets the criteria and of the two the later is more credible.
The story is hard to believe, and the sources are Rudy Giuliani, who we know was meeting with Russian intelligence operatives and a selectively blind QTard.
You have every right to declare them credible, but FYI it makes you look either dishonest or dumb as shit.
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:4, Insightful)
This all happened some time ago, so it stands to reason that if the emails were authentic, Trump's DOJ would have delivered more than a nothingburger with respect to Biden's alleged wrongdoing in Ukraine. Now Barr may lose his job because of this failure, so he had every reason to deliver the goods if there were any. https://www.realclearpolitics.... [realclearpolitics.com]!
Also, the GOP-lead Senate found no wrongdoing by Biden. https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... [go.com] One would think that Rudy would have tipped off a Senator if he thought the laptop story would withstand scrutiny. But he saved it as an October Surprise, and had it published by a Hannity employee without factchecking in a right-wing rag . From this we can infer that even Sean "Hillary murdered Seth Ritch" Hannity wouldn't take responsibility for spread.ing this shit.
The metadata, linguistic, and pixelation arguments against authenticity also seemed solid, but I didn't dig-in given what we know already.
Time and forensics will tell. I doubt President Biden will be impeached over it, but there are already rumors that they'll try.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> Can you provide info from a non-partisan reputable source please?
I've been looking for one for years. Do you have suggestions?
Re: (Score:3)
> Can you provide info from a non-partisan reputable source please?
I've been looking for one for years. Do you have suggestions?
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart is a good starting point, though you should probably compare with other entities who attempt to rate media bias.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone already took sides, you won't find neutral arbiters of truth. More so, there is plenty undsputed information corroborating this. We know that Hunter Biden drew salaries from sitting on various boards without having any relevant qualifications. We know that VP Biden had Ukrainian prosecutor personally fired. None of that is in any kind of dispute. These emails just linking what we already know to help us establish intent.
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Insightful)
We know that VP Biden had Ukrainian prosecutor personally fired.
Which made an investigation of Burisma even more likely, not less. It was the literal opposite of a cover-up.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. When Biden did this, the assumption was that Hillary would be a shoo-in as President post-Obama and that none of this would ever have gotten any ink. That's also why very little was done to cover their tracks during the Trump campaign surveillance, the inappropriately-obtained FISA warrants to continue the surveillance after Trump won, etc.
There are likely quite a lot of deep state folks out there that are quaking in their boots if they don't get the White House and the Senate back. There nee
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not following your argument at all.
The claim is that Biden's involvement in the multi-nation effort to get rid of the useless Ukrainian prosecutor was somehow corrupt, because it benefited his son. But in fact, the removal of the prosecutor made an investigation in Ukraine even more likely - i.e., it didn't benefit his son. If anything, it put him at greater risk.
Where's the corruption?
Re: (Score:3)
The corruption is to remove a prosecutor "because it benefited his son".
But that's NOT WHAT HAPPENED. At all.
The downside - "made an investigation in Ukraine even more likely" was not given when everyone at the time anticipated Hillary to win in 2016.
This makes no sense. Even with an anticipated Clinton win, Joe Biden's best option, if he was really covering for his son, was to do nothing. But again, that's NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
Re: (Score:3)
Biden successfully had [the] Ukrainian prosecutor removed.
Working with many other countries, who also wanted him gone. True.
That benefited his son.
That's a lie.
Since you're having trouble understanding this, let me reiterate: It is a complete, total fabrication that the move benefited his son. It is a falsehood. It is BULLSHIT.
Here, have some links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the actual Ukrainian prosecutor disputing that:
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Here are the facts about John Solomon's columns where he lied about Biden's involvement:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
This matters because Solomon was the one who pushed for that statement you quoted. Turns out it was a fabrication, maybe so Solomon could try and get a gig at Fox (looks like it worked).
Here is the report where Seante *Republicans* were completely unable to find any wrongdoing by Biden:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Informative)
Except there is proof Trump worked with Russia, since the late 80s in fact, when he started laundering money for the Russian mob.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/d... [forbes.com]
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018... [foreignpolicy.com]
And the emails mean nothing. It's just an initiation. Nothing more. No quid pro quo, or even the hint of it. Just another fucking nothingburger, unlike the actual millions of taxpayer money the Trump spawn have raked in,.
'Zero' Proof (Score:5, Insightful)
Zero proof? Over the course of his nearly two-year-long probe, special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors indicted 34 individuals and three Russian businesses on charges ranging from computer hacking to conspiracy and financial crimes. Those indictments have led to seven guilty pleas and five people sentenced to prison, including former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign official Rick Gates, Trump's National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Trump’s former personal attorney and long-time fixer Michael Cohen, Trump's friend and veteran political operative Roger Stone, and foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. The only reason Trump himself is not on the list is because he is the sitting president and cannot be charged with crimes, only impeached (which he was, by congress).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Insightful)
Three f'ing years of "Trump is a Riussian spy!!!" with zero proof, you are just shameless.
You mean "Three fucking years of 'Obama and Biden spied on my campaign', that not even Trump's Praetorian Guardian, Bill Barr, could find proof of, is just shameless, right?
Fixed that for you.
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:4, Informative)
Bullshit. This is just like all the other manufactured faux scandals, and you know it. It won't stick. No one cares. As a piece of propaganda, it has already failed.
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:4, Insightful)
Your claim is that the allegations against Hunter Biden must be refuted. BUt in fact, because they have never been proven, they do not need to be refuted. You lost before you even started, because you aren't really trying. The point of your propaganda is not to "prove" anything. It is just to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. And you are trying to help. But you are doing a piss poor job.
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet again, a Republican tries to tug at the heart strings while providing no facts. Sorry, but y'all had over about a decade to make this stick, and despite wasting huge amounts of time and making Clinton testify for eleven hours, there is simply no smoking gun. Or any gun. Or even a toy sword.
You lost, the truth won, let it go.
Re: (Score:3)
But I did not want you to fuck that for me. Please unfuck it by telling the truth. Hillary may have used a private email server, but there was no rules against doing so at the time she started it. When called out, she turned over the entirety of the email records from the server, and stopped.
Meanwhile, the entire Trump family is currently breaking that same regulation, and no one cares.
Re:Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the New York Post, you don't even need to read one of their articles to know that it's all bizarre tabloid fodder.
Also, it wasn't banned for lies, it was banned because it used material obtained from hacking and publishing private information (email addresses, photos). Hunter Biden is not a public figure and is not running for office. Yes, the laptop was left behind at a repair shop and not retrieved but the rules on Twitter seem to have been in place before this incident.
And it's irrelevent to the election. It's relevant to scandalous politics of course which is why those goons want to keep sharing the links (and I realize that describing politics as scandalous is redundant). The whole Burisma thing was a non-story, hyped out of proportion by Trump's conspiracy theories. It was bad judgement for Hunter to accept the job, but it did not affect foreign policy by the vice president's office. the only reason they want to share the links widely is because they know it may influence some voters who are unable to discern the validity of the stories. Meanwhile, Trump has made all of his children who are over 18 a part of the administration (the Von Trump Singers) who have many worse foibles and lapses in judgement.
Re: Bizarro Republican World (Score:4, Insightful)
The Biden campaign hasn't been silent:
https://www.washingtonexaminer... [washingtonexaminer.com]
And only an idiot would think those emails "look fairly legitimate".
Re: Bizarro Republican World (Score:5, Insightful)
They are disputing the authenticity of the emails that might even slightly matter; they aren't stupid enough to get into a game of whack-a-mole with a garbage story like this.
And they didn't walk back anything - they made a careful statement to ensure someone can't claim some quick selfie had any meaning whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh please. They could destroy Trump if those emails and pictures of Hunter with a crackpipe hanging out of his mouth were faked. How stupid do you think people are?
A lot more stupid than that. If they could prove the pictures were faked, at most it would get chalked up to some rabid fan going a bit too far... or if that failed then Trump fans would claim the whole thing was a false flag operation set up to discredit the campaign.
Though I don't see any reason to think the pictures were faked. Hunter is known to have drug problems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, you're funny.
Trump lies virtually every time opens his mouth. He was impeached for trying to get somebody to fabricate evidence. Four of his campaign managers have been arrested. But this time, if *Giuliani* was shown to have invented some emails, it would somehow 'destroy' Trump.
Yeah. Sure.
But that was some very good trolling, so congrats on that!
Re: (Score:3)
Biden has made a bundle on book deals and speaking engagements. Joe Biden's net worth, 9 Million (https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a31265187/joe-biden-net-worth/)
Trump's net worth - 2.5 Billion (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/09/08/trumps-net-worth-drops-600-million-in-a-year-to-25-billion/#4ff097bd2363) I recommend reading House of Trump House of Putin to learn how he mad
Holy F (Score:5, Funny)
Never before have we seen active censorship of a major press publication with serious allegations of corruption of one of the two candidates for president.
Holy F***, this is major news, I can’t believe we’ve heard nothing about this! Hunter Biden is running for President! Why isn’t this on every front page?!?
Re:Holy F (Score:4, Informative)
The email in yesterday's story indicates that Joe Biden personally met with the corrupt head of the Ukrainian energy company that had recently hired Hunter Biden. Joe Biden claimed he had never taken part in any such of meeting, or even any discussion of his son's business dealings. If yesterday's email is real, that means Joe Biden repeatedly lied about that, and it brings into question why he did not recuse himself from US government dealings with Ukraine.
(The email in today's Biden story shows that Hunter Biden thought equity in a Chinese-backed company "was so much more interesting to me and my family", with one breakdown showing 20% of the equity apparently going to Hunter and 10% "held by H[unter] for the big guy". Which big guy would that have been?)
Re: (Score:2)
10% "held by H[unter] for the big guy"
Putin?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This story is way better sourced, and more solid, than the stolen Trump tax return stories from the NYT or the "Trump is dying of COVID" stories that were very briefly popular. You have a rather sad double standard about what qualifies as "confirmation".
Re: Holy F (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks pretty damaging to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that he never discussed business affairs with his son yet we have emails from a Burisma executive thanking Hunter for introducing him to his Dad Joe.
How did Hunter get that plum assignment with Burisma without having any experience in the Oil and Gas business and not being able to speak any of the languages spoken at the board meetings? Exactly what benefit is he able to add, other than access to Joe?
Just this morning I read a story about Hunter's involvement with Ye Jianming, former Chairman of CEFC China Energy, with an email outlining a $30 million dollar (10 million a year for 3 years) payment plus bonuses, 'based on introductions alone'. It also detailed a 'much more lasting and lucrative arrangement.'
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. The American people have a right to know what is going on here and instead what we are getting is a coordinated cover up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Looks pretty damaging to me (Score:2)
Coordinated coverup? Are you serious? How many right wing outlets and PACs are there? You are telling me none of them are competent to dig up the proper evidence and publish it and put ads about it?
Jesus if the "main stream media" was even remotely as evil and coordinated as some people believe one would begin to wonder how even half the Republicans got into office, let alone control all THREE branches for 2 years. Even today, it's like Goliath being afraid of David. The ONLY power the Dems have had ove
Re: (Score:2)
> This whole thing stinks to high heaven. The American people have a right to know what is going on here and instead what we are getting is a coordinated cover up.
That's what you think. Other people think you exist to be milked for taxes so they can be rich and powerful.
Their role is to prune back hard the Tree of Liberty at every opportunity.
Generally, they act and the other people don't - concentrated interests and diffuse costs problem. Having sociopathy as a character trait helps in their endeavour
Election interference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not running a fake story would seem to be the responsible thing to do. Or isn't responsible what the fake Senator from Texas wants?
It is a tabloid. (Score:4, Informative)
Even if the New York post were not a Rupert Murdoch property... which shoots its credibility to zero anyway; it is just a TABLOID, which drops its credibility to less than zero. They are not even intended to ever be real news source in the first place. If I want to know how Bat Boy and the Loch Ness Monster are getting along now that they have added Bigfoot to their relationship and formed a polyamorous thruple, or how a bug is wearing an Edgar suit during its pursuit of the galaxy, I will pick up a tabloid. But a tabloid masquerading as news? Yeah, no.
How about discussion using facts? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Tabloid" is just name-calling. Name-calling is for when you can't argue facts. Get some facts.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"The New York Post (sometimes abbreviated as NY Post) is a daily tabloid newspaper in New York City."
Re: (Score:3)
computer-repair person (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:computer-repair person (Score:4, Interesting)
> If this computer-repair person is for real, he should lose his business. Why is he searching through emails?
Supposedly the computer was dropped off with contact info that was no good and the owner never came back to claim it.
What would you do?
1. See if you can figure out whose it is by the data on the drive and get it back to them.
2. Hold on to it forever.
3. Hold onto it for X days and then recycle it.
4. Hold onto it for X days and then resell it.
What if you did #1 and what you found was evidence of crimes?
Are you so privacy-centric that if you found pedo on the drive you'd just be a pal and not call the cops?
It seems he did #1 and then turned it over to the FBI . That seems reasonable.
He also knows that the FBI is incredibly corrupt and kept an image because he doesn't trust them. After a while it appears he gave it to the President's lawyer. The President is authorized to handle all classifications of information.
Not sure where the hangup is.
President's lawyer (Score:3)
So what normal businessman has access to the presidents lawyer? Can you just email him and say hey look what I found? If this were a court case it would be thrown out for having evidence improperly collected and handled.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly though the real story here isn't even the computer repair guy. Why would Hunter Biden be dumb enough to just turn over a laptop full of incriminating videos to
Great idea (Score:3)
Twitter ~= Press (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter is not âoethe Pressâ.
It is their platform, and they have zero First Amendment restrictions on "Censorship".
Grow up.
Oh, and The New York Post??? (Rollseyes)
DKIM (Score:2)
These were purportedly Gmail to Gmail.
Let's see and verify (or not) the headers.
Rudy, send me the mbox if you dare.
Oh, the US of awesomeness (Score:3)
a) Someone acquires illegslly some emails from a laptop he is supposed to repair.
b) A news outlet publishs them _illegsaly_
c) A website refuses to be drawn into that _illegal_ behaviour and blocks links to that news outlet.
The web site's CEO is now in the line of fire but not a) or b)??? How retaeded is that? And I saw already two "but free speach, oh oh" posts here ... which is even more retarded.
ROFL. (Score:3)
Fox News portrayed it as one of the biggest scandals in American history. Then it fell apart [cnn.com]
Not a SINGLE CHARGE after an investigation that lasted longer than what Trump/Barr allowed Mueller to investigate trump.
Top Intelligence Official Releases Unverified, Previously Rejected Russia Information [nytimes.com]
John Ratcliffe Pledged to Stay Apolitical. Then He Began Serving Trump’s Political Agenda. [nytimes.com]
Never in our history has NSA, CIA, etc been involved in such treasonous acts.
Now, we have a laptop that supposedly belongs to Hunter Biden, but the store owner could not be certain. And it contained such incriminating evidence that hunter dropped it off last month and left it there. Oddly, the store owner claims that he tried to contact hunter but could not do so.
This is something that one of the many tolls here on
Slashdot has fallen (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a time when Slashdot would immediately scream "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it", plaster stuff like 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 everywhere in defiance of corporate censorship regardless of the content being censored, and proclaim fuck the corporate powers.
That Slashdot has died.
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
https://news.yahoo.com/rudy-gi... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We shall not be safe until we start posting billionaire's heads on pikes.
We could make a religion out of this.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the Clinton campaign, their employees, and sympathizers in the FBI and MSM using a fake dossier provided by known Russian sources to kick off a three year long smear campaign and legal attack against their Republican opponent?
Exactly whose heads should be "on pikes" for that particular bit of election interference?
Re: (Score:2)
This is clearly the case of the GOP using faked evidence, with help from Russia, to smear their Democratic opponent. We shall not be safe until we start posting billionaire's heads on pikes.
Sure.. But as a Democrat Senator who knowingly lied about the Republican party's candidate's taxes from the floor of the Senate... "We won didn't we?"
Fume all you like, politics is a contact sport.
Re: FAKE NEWS (Score:2)
Why should they have to? All folks will say is "Of course they will say that!" and the topic will get more airtime.
Do I need to start all my posts with a preface denouncing all White Supremacists? If not before do I need to do so going forward because I made a post that included it?