Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hunter Biden's Laptop [Merged]


and-then
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It's not me saying it, it's the news saying it now. The "hacked material" story was dropped by the media within weeks of the story, I honestly don't know why you're still saying it's hacked. 

 

It's much the same if you watch channel 7 or 9 or ABC news in Australia. Not quite as bad as CNN, but still pretty bad. 

I don't like cricket or F1 - we apparently have different tastes. 

CNN doesn't "cause me trauma", this sounds like a convenient way to paint my views into a ridiculous belief that doesn't actually represent what I truly believe. 

You yourself said you suffered a kind of PTSD as an Aussie Trump Supporter.  I like the way Hasset sold "Trump's Tax Policy".  Policy has primacy over politics.  You keep talkin' for The Man.

There is no way that ABC is in the same boat as 7 or 9.  There is nowhere near the amount ratings chasing.  I still get annoyed at the ABC, mainly when distracted by obvious token diversity; but, I'm only human.

I suspect the Hunter's data wasn't stored on the device.  Here in Australia that's not such a big deal, except for provenance.  In USA I believe there are stricter rules for gathering evidence.  You are trusting what you label an untrustworthy MSM reporting the material might be true.  You don't know how old the MacBooks are.  You don't know the details about the email sevice.  The store owner can't even be sure that Hunter dropped it off?

With the EXIF data of Hunter's selfies we could be certain when he snapped them.  None of that detail, hey?

No proof that it's genuine just that it appears it might be possible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The "hacked material" line has been dropped by the media long ago. Why are you still running with it? 

Because of the current inability of the NYT to confirm the origin of the emails.

Because there are reports of the emails being offered for sale on the Ukranian black market, in 2019.

Because the FBI inquiry into Guliani over his attempts to find evidence in Ukraine to use against Biden in the 2020 election is still ongoing.
 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You yourself said you suffered a kind of PTSD as an Aussie Trump Supporter.

I honestly cannot recall the context of my statement in which I said this, but I guarantee you that if you went and quoted my post it would say something very different (most likely a narrow statement that you've interpreted broadly to apply to simply watching news).

I checked my post history for the term "PTSD", and the only post that popped up was unrelated. I can recall occasionally saying that it's frustrating seeing the media say one thing for months on end and then flip a switch and start reporting the exact opposite and pretend that this is exactly how they have been treating it all along, but that is far from having "PTSD as an Aussie Trump supporter". 

Without a quote to base anything on, I have no idea to what you are referring, but based on my understanding of my beliefs, it's definitely contextually inaccurate (or I misspoke/mis-wrote).

 

19 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

There is no way that ABC is in the same boat as 7 or 9.  There is nowhere near the amount ratings chasing.

ABC is a terrible news source. I am embarrassed that my tax dollars go to supporting that drivel! 

 

19 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I suspect the Hunter's data wasn't stored on the device. 

There really is no way to know that. I guess you'd have to check Delawere state law (that's where the laptop was accessed, after all) if you want to know, but if it was illegal, and if this is how the material was accessed, I would bet money that the media would have said that long before now. 

Whatever the case, there was no valid reason to censor the story in 2020, except to push a narrative that supported one side of politics over the other. 

 

19 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The store owner can't even be sure that Hunter dropped it off?

Hunter's signature is on the form. You don't have to have physically seen Hunter (the guy is legally blind, I believe) to have a contract with a signature on it, a signature that matches Hunter's signature, and that Hunter has never denied the laptop being his! You're stretching for any excuse to dismiss the story now! 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Because of the current inability of the NYT to confirm the origin of the emails.

Because there are reports of the emails being offered for sale on the Ukranian black market, in 2019.

Because the FBI inquiry into Guliani over his attempts to find evidence in Ukraine to use against Biden in the 2020 election is still ongoing.
 

Unable? Or unwilling? 

It sounds like you're stretching for any reason to justify why Big Tech took the extraordinary step to censor the story. It was a ridiculous reason in 2020, it's still ridiculous in 2022. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Nevertheless, the laptop contained non-hacked material of a sensitive nature that was (and indeed is today) suppressed by the mainstream media because they wanted a democrat president. 

  

Nice rationalisation. 

The whole thing was squashed because it was around 2 weeks till the election and the Left didn't want another Weiner laptop catastrophe, like happened to Clinton in 2016. Comey reopened the Clinton Server investigation about 2 weeks before the election due to Anthony Weiner, a House Representative from New York having messaging with little girls. And he was married to Clintons aid, Huma Abedin, and it had all HRCs emails on it.

Its one of Clintons top 3 reasons she lost to Trump.

So the Media couldn't have that happen again. They rounded up 51 "experts", most of whom were on the payrolls of those news outlets, and created a Russian Disinformation story.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Unable? Or unwilling? 

It sounds like you're stretching for any reason to justify why Big Tech took the extraordinary step to censor the story. It was a ridiculous reason in 2020, it's still ridiculous in 2022. 

I thought it was clear. Big Tech censored it to protect the privacy of those in the emails, where their actual email address was shown.

Made a convenient excuse anyway. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
32 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Unable? Or unwilling? 

It sounds like you're stretching for any reason to justify why Big Tech took the extraordinary step to censor the story. It was a ridiculous reason in 2020, it's still ridiculous in 2022. 

Unable or unwilling to do what, exactly?

Re: 2020 — you may remember that a Russian email hack was used to influence the prior 2016 election.

Perhaps you'll recall that Fox turned down breaking the Biden laptop story, due to the provenance of the data.

Maybe you'll even recall that Bruce Golding — the lead on the NY Post's story — refused to attach his name to it, due to his concerns about its credibility.

Given the NYT's inability, even now, to confirm the origin — I see no evidence that the story is any more credible now, than it was then.
 

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Hunter's signature is on the form. You don't have to have physically seen Hunter (the guy is legally blind, I believe) to have a contract with a signature on it, a signature that matches Hunter's signature, and that Hunter has never denied the laptop being his!

 

Fairly sure Hunter's not saying he left it at the repair shop.

Also fairly sure that a nation state's intelligence services can forge a signature.

Much harder to forge:  Undisputed credit card transactions, CCTV footage, GPS data, or reliable eyewitness accounts.

All of which are conspicuous by their absence.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I thought it was clear. Big Tech censored it to protect the privacy of those in the emails, where their actual email address was shown.

Believe you'll find that it's illegal under US law to publish hacked materials.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I honestly cannot recall the context of my statement in which I said this, but I guarantee you that if you went and quoted my post it would say something very different (most likely a narrow statement that you've interpreted broadly to apply to simply watching news).

I checked my post history for the term "PTSD", and the only post that popped up was unrelated. I can recall occasionally saying that it's frustrating seeing the media say one thing for months on end and then flip a switch and start reporting the exact opposite and pretend that this is exactly how they have been treating it all along, but that is far from having "PTSD as an Aussie Trump supporter". 

Without a quote to base anything on, I have no idea to what you are referring, but based on my understanding of my beliefs, it's definitely contextually inaccurate (or I misspoke/mis-wrote).

 

ABC is a terrible news source. I am embarrassed that my tax dollars go to supporting that drivel! 

 

There really is no way to know that. I guess you'd have to check Delawere state law (that's where the laptop was accessed, after all) if you want to know, but if it was illegal, and if this is how the material was accessed, I would bet money that the media would have said that long before now. 

Whatever the case, there was no valid reason to censor the story in 2020, except to push a narrative that supported one side of politics over the other. 

 

Hunter's signature is on the form. You don't have to have physically seen Hunter (the guy is legally blind, I believe) to have a contract with a signature on it, a signature that matches Hunter's signature, and that Hunter has never denied the laptop being his! You're stretching for any excuse to dismiss the story now! 

 

 

Funny, I think you're a bit pollyanna with story.  But, I'm not the one with the dog in fight.  I'm just asking if you can fill in the gaps, which you can't.

You're begging the question when you only trust MSM when they say what you want to hear.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The whole thing was squashed because it was around 2 weeks till the election and the Left didn't want another Weiner laptop catastrophe, like happened to Clinton in 2016. Comey reopened the Clinton Server investigation about 2 weeks before the election due to Anthony Weiner, a House Representative from New York having messaging with little girls. And he was married to Clintons aid, Huma Abedin, and it had all HRCs emails on it.

Its one of Clintons top 3 reasons she lost to Trump.

So the Media couldn't have that happen again. They rounded up 51 "experts", most of whom were on the payrolls of those news outlets, and created a Russian Disinformation story.

Weiss apparently didn't want it either.  Ergo, Weiss is a Leftie.

:rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Believe you'll find that it's illegal under US law to publish hacked materials.

It is, but thats almost never stopped a news outlet from doing so, be it a left, or right, leaning outlet. Stolen Trump tax records were published all over in 2020, I think.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Unable or unwilling to do what, exactly?

Re: 2020 — you may remember that a Russian email hack was used to influence the prior 2016 election.

Perhaps you'll recall that Fox turned down breaking the Biden laptop story, due to the provenance of the data.

Maybe you'll even recall that Bruce Golding — the lead on the NY Post's story — refused to attach his name to it, due to his concerns about its credibility.

Given the NYT's inability, even now, to confirm the origin — I see no evidence that the story is any more credible now, than it was then.
 

 

Fairly sure Hunter's not saying he left it at the repair shop.

Also fairly sure that a nation state's intelligence services can forge a signature.

Much harder to forge:  Undisputed credit card transactions, CCTV footage, GPS data, or reliable eyewitness accounts.

All of which are conspicuous by their absence.

I dont believe either Joe, or Hunter, has said its not his laptop. Hunter only said he didn't remember bringing it in.

I might be wrong though. I'll go look and see if they have said it wasn't his.

If it wasn't his, you'd think that would be the very first thing he'd say. That he can't remember isn't tremendously hard to imagine, with his history of drug and alcohol abuse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Weiss apparently didn't want it either.  Ergo, Weiss is a Leftie.

:rolleyes:

Did he vote for Biden?

Lots of people didn't want it. Its a sword with a knife for a handle. Going to cut whomever uses it, even if it cuts the other guy worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

It is, but thats almost never stopped a news outlet from doing so, be it a left, or right, leaning outlet. Stolen Trump tax records were published all over in 2020, I think.

Believe they were given to the NYT by Mary Trump, and were neither hacked nor stolen (but she was under NDA not to reveal them).
 

5 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I dont believe either Joe, or Hunter, has said its not his laptop. Hunter only said he didn't remember bringing it in.

I might be wrong though. I'll go look and see if they have said it wasn't his.

If it wasn't his, you'd think that would be the very first thing he'd say. That he can't remember isn't tremendously hard to imagine, with his history of drug and alcohol abuse.

There's a Twitter post with a video clip in the post you've quoted, where he says it could have been stolen from him, or the data hacked.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tiggs said:

Believe they were given to the NYT by Mary Trump, and were neither hacked nor stolen (but she was under NDA not to reveal them).

So not stolen, but released illegally. Still documents the News wasn't supposed to have.

Quote

There's a Twitter post with a video clip in the post you've quoted, where he says it could have been stolen from him, or the data hacked.

But still not saying it's not his. Not saying what was found on it wasn't his either. Other then a nebulous "Russians", excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So not stolen, but released illegally. Still documents the News wasn't supposed to have.

Depends how the judge sees it. Case is still ongoing, as far as I'm aware.
 

6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

But still not saying it's not his. Not saying what was found on it wasn't his either. Other then a nebulous "Russians", excuse.

I don't think that the contents are particularly in dispute. Just the mechanism of discovery.
 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

"Biased left-wing media" basically describes 99% of outlets out there right now, but if I were to clarify that I intended to mean "Biased left wing media" virtually no one would get what I'm saying. They would disqualify CNN or MSNBC from my list because they don't recognise that CNN or MSNBC is a biased left wing media outlet. 

You're going around in circles.  You accused me of being misleading for just using the word 'competitors' earlier and now are using 99% falsely.  You've now clarified that the 'outlets out there' you are referring to is actually the subset of American news sources that reach Australia and of course that you are aware of.  Anyway, you just said that your earlier description that 'the media' 'demonizes the right', et al, was somehow supposed to also include Fox and that you were going to be more consistent.  In Australia you get 99 biased left-wing media outlets for every one Fox News?  We have other people from Australia here, I doubt they would back that up.

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

This isn't a "my guy is bad but your guy is bad too" case, this is a "neither of the guys are bad, but the media went to town on my guy and made him into a bad guy, but the same media made your guy out to be a reasonable person". 

Very very VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VEREY VERY VERY VERY different!

'The same media'?  What does that mean? NPR?  All of American media?  Again, if you are going to criticize me for not being specific enough then you should stop being very vague yourself.  None of the above of course has anything to do with what you quoted from me which was about Fox's lawyers, not Maddow.

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

That is not what they argued, and you are misrepresenting them. Fox News lawyers argued that Tucker Carlson runs an opinion show that includes opinions on the news. That is NOT the same as Fox lawyers arguing that their programming is untrustworthy! 

Technically I didn't say that Fox's lawyers argued that their programming is untrustworthy, I said they wouldn't argue that it was trustworthy. From your NPR link:

Quote

She alleged "a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence listening or watching the show ... would conclude that [she] is a criminal who extorted Trump for money" and that "the statements about [her] were fact."

"Context makes plain," Fox's lawyers wrote, "that the reasonable viewer would do no such thing."

The judge fully agreed.

So the reasonable viewer would not conclude the statements about her were fact, which means the reasonable viewer would not conclude that his statements can be trusted to be the truth.  I have no idea how you are parsing this, and you've got a lot of work to show 'misrepresentation'.  The way to counter my statement is to show where the Fox lawyers in this case did argue that his statements were trustworthy, good luck with that.

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

It's not just "the laptop is real", but the fact that you don't know that demonstrates that the mainstream media has done its job in hiding the truth from you. 

No, that is you jumping to conclusions again.  Did it ever occur to you that I'm not a political news junkie and I have not looked into this?  The only conclusion you can think of my questioning what 'the laptop is real' means is that it's been hidden from me by the media?  You said it in your first line that you're assuming I haven't looked into it which is correct; that's different than 'the mainstream media' is hiding the truth from me which I hope you recognize.  BTW, what non-mainstream media are you getting all your info from?

Sorry, my fault for taking us so far off-topic.  To the topic I will note that your recent responses to Tiggs' comments are awfully evasive for someone who is championing themselves as knowing 'the truth' and accusing others of being misled and fooled, and his comments also suggest that there is a lot of information that you have either purposely left out of your analysis, don't understand the relevance of, or are merely parroting the non-responses from 'the media' you consume.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It doesn't matter what evidence is posted... The true Biden supporters will say its NOT proof. Then say no proof has been put forward. Bobulinski is not proof. Actual emails in NYT article with actual email address of Hunter, is not proof. Though Twitter and FB both banned the article to protect those emails... 

So there's no proof. Even though the proof is overwhelming that the laptop is real, and is Hunters, and was full of porn, and emails linking Papa Joe to various money schemes and influencing seeking by foreign nationals.

No proof....

You have proof he owned a laptop, you don't have proof he had anything to do with *** Blocked ***

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

You have proof he owned a laptop, you don't have proof he had anything to do with *** Blocked ***

There was no proof Trump did anything illegal before the election of 2016, but he got investigated for three years anyway. Often a juicy anonymous charge on the Media is enough.

Let me look around. I'm not sure what your blocked word is, but I'll try to guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Autochthon1990 said:

You have proof he owned a laptop, you don't have proof he had anything to do with *** Blocked ***

As far as I can tell, you're right. There were pictures published, but they could be fakes. And they were with what appeared to be older teens.

Such though was never MY point. I've only been interested in the emails, and what they illustrate about Hunter. Though not directly denied, Hunter has said his laptop was hacked and IMPLIES that the emails are fake, without actually saying so. But Bobulinski (business associate/partner) said they were real. BUT... BUT... BUT... He must be a liar, right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Given the NYT's inability, even now, to confirm the origin — I see no evidence that the story is any more credible now, than it was then.

And yet it is a fact! It exists, and the emails exist. 

 

20 hours ago, Tiggs said:


 

 

Fairly sure Hunter's not saying he left it at the repair shop.

He's obfuscating. He's admitting its his without admitting its his, and giving credence to "Russian disinformation" at the same time. I'm surprised you are falling for it, though. 

 

20 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Also fairly sure that a nation state's intelligence services can forge a signature.

They can. But they didn't. It's Hunter's laptop. If it wasn't he would have said so! You're stretching for any excuse to dismiss the story at this stage :tu: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Funny, I think you're a bit pollyanna with story.  But, I'm not the one with the dog in fight.  I'm just asking if you can fill in the gaps, which you can't.

You're begging the question when you only trust MSM when they say what you want to hear.

The mainstream media rarely outright lies. They lie by omission, they lie by misdirection, they lie by reporting on different elements of a story, but they rarely tell an out and out falsehood! 

I'm not just accepting this story because the mainstream media is now agreeing with me. Honestly, I thought the mainstream media admitted months ago that it was a legit story, I guess I was wrong. The New York Times DID, however, attempt to bury the fact of this laptop in paragraph 24 of a 38 paragraph article, an article that is apparently only available to NYT subscribers. Knowing how many (or rather, how few) people actually read beyond a headline, it's obvious that they are burying this in an article hoping that no one sees it. 

Heck, the fact that we're even arguing whether the laptop is legit or not is an indictment on the media! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It is, but thats almost never stopped a news outlet from doing so, be it a left, or right, leaning outlet. Stolen Trump tax records were published all over in 2020, I think.

19 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Believe they were given to the NYT by Mary Trump, and were neither hacked nor stolen (but she was under NDA not to reveal them).

When the tax return story broke, no one knew who the source was who leaked the tax returns. The media kept that to themselves as a protected source. Twitter could have made an executive decision that "until we know that this is not the result of hacked material, we are going to stop this story from being spread". The fact that they didn't but they did censor the laptop story that came out only a couple of weeks later says everything I need to know! 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You're going around in circles.  You accused me of being misleading for just using the word 'competitors' earlier and now are using 99% falsely.  You've now clarified that the 'outlets out there' you are referring to is actually the subset of American news sources that reach Australia and of course that you are aware of.  Anyway, you just said that your earlier description that 'the media' 'demonizes the right', et al, was somehow supposed to also include Fox and that you were going to be more consistent.  In Australia you get 99 biased left-wing media outlets for every one Fox News?  We have other people from Australia here, I doubt they would back that up.

I already said I have been using "media" inconsistently and I will try to do better in the future to clarify to what I am referring. *Heck, I'm re-reading my post, and I'm editing this line in before I submit my reply because it appears I've used the word "media" to describe two different groups of people - I've clarified in-post to what I am referring, I hope, because the word "media" is appropriate in both instances*

 

11 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

'The same media'?  What does that mean? NPR?  All of American media?  Again, if you are going to criticize me for not being specific enough then you should stop being very vague yourself.  None of the above of course has anything to do with what you quoted from me which was about Fox's lawyers, not Maddow.

What does that mean? Literally all of the media (at least the media that you get in a basic Google search). Consider the following two Google Searches:

Tucker Carlson - https://www.google.com/search?q=tucker+carlson+reasonable+viewer&rlz=1C1GCEA_enAU962AU962&oq=tucker+carlson+reasonable+viewer&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.4193j0j9&sourceid=chrome&{google:instantExtendedEnabledParameter}ie=UTF-8

Rachel Maddow - https://www.google.com/search?q=rachel+maddow+reasonable+viewer&rlz=1C1GCEA_enAU962AU962&oq=rachel+maddow&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i512l4j69i60l2.1453j0j7&sourceid=chrome&{google:instantExtendedEnabledParameter}ie=UTF-8

And now the headlines for the top 5 search results for "Tucker Carlson reasonable viewer" - 

1 - You literally cannot believe the facts Tucker Carlson Tells you
2 - Fox wins McDougal case, argues no one takes Tucker Carlson Seriously
3 - Tucker Carlson Successfully Argues nobody really believes Tucker is reporting facts
4 - Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox argues no reasonable viewer takes Carlson seriously
5 - No reasonable viewer takes Carlson seriously. Do you agree?

The rest of the results on page 1 ALL have some variation on the "judge rules reasonable viewers do not turn to Tucker Carlson for facts". 

Compare this to the top 5 results about "Rachel Maddow reasonable viewer":

1 - Rachel maddow and MSNBC beat OAN $10M Defamation Suit
2 - A court ruled Rachel Maddow's viewers know she offers exaggeration and opinion, not facts
3 - OAN loses appeal in Defamation Suit against Rachel Maddow
4 - Judge Dismisses One America News defamation lawsuit
5 - OAN loses appeal in defamation suit against Rachel Maddow

This, at least, has one result in the top 5 that demonstrate the alternative point of view, though I don't imagine Glenn Greenwald's substack page is going to be too high on anyone's "trusted sources" list, and only one other source on page 1 of this search is anti-Maddow, and they quote Glenn Greenwald. 

My point is that what Tucker Carlson did was not crazy or out of line. It is entirely consistent within an opinion show to include opinions. If you saw any lawyer blogs breaking down the Maddow or Carlson case as it happened (I did, I watched lawyers talk about both situations as they unfolded), those lawyers will leave you with no doubt that this is an open-and-shut legal matter, not controversial at all. Yet if you look at the reporting on the two situations, the mainstream media totally went to town on Tucker Carlson and made it out like he's done something crazy bad and that literally "reasonable viewers don't turn to Tucker Carlson for facts". That is NOT what the judge said, it is a basatardisation of what the judge said. Meanwhile, the media did NOT do this for Rachel Maddow. 

And to go back to our other discussion on my use of the term "the media", in this instance I am using that word to refer to the sources that come as a direct result from a Google search. "The Media" is the one who puts these headlines up, and they are clearly presenting a left-wing bias almost exclusively. Maybe there are more sources (actually, I know there are more sources) but if they don't come up when you search for it, then how can you even know it exists unless you have information that is not freely available to everyone who logs into a computer? 

I know, you didn't mention Rachel Maddow. I'm using hers as an example of how the media SHOULD have reported on Tucker Carlson. And IF the media reported on Tucker Carlson in an appropriate manner, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this argument right now.

 

11 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Technically I didn't say that Fox's lawyers argued that their programming is untrustworthy, I said they wouldn't argue that it was trustworthy. From your NPR link:

So the reasonable viewer would not conclude the statements about her were fact, which means the reasonable viewer would not conclude that his statements can be trusted to be the truth.  I have no idea how you are parsing this, and you've got a lot of work to show 'misrepresentation'.  The way to counter my statement is to show where the Fox lawyers in this case did argue that his statements were trustworthy, good luck with that.

Potay-to, Potah-to. It's a bastardisation of what the lawyers said. 

For curiosity, if you replaced Fox and MSNBC in your arguments, would you agree that "reasonable viewers do not turn to Rachel Maddow for facts"? Or at the least would youagree that MSNBC lawyers wouldn't argue that she was trustworthy? If you do agree with this, then from my point of view I can at least accept that you are consistent in your approach, if not agree with your overall interpretation (I would also suggest reading/watching a lawyer blog or video about the Maddow and Carlson case and seeing what lawyers say about the case without all the media spin that gets in the way - if anything most lawyers I've seen, if pressed, seem to think Maddow's situation was mildly worse, though they generally think it's much of a muchness between them). 

 

11 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

No, that is you jumping to conclusions again.  Did it ever occur to you that I'm not a political news junkie and I have not looked into this?  The only conclusion you can think of my questioning what 'the laptop is real' means is that it's been hidden from me by the media?  You said it in your first line that you're assuming I haven't looked into it which is correct; that's different than 'the mainstream media' is hiding the truth from me which I hope you recognize.  BTW, what non-mainstream media are you getting all your info from?

Sorry, my fault for taking us so far off-topic.  To the topic I will note that your recent responses to Tiggs' comments are awfully evasive for someone who is championing themselves as knowing 'the truth' and accusing others of being misled and fooled, and his comments also suggest that there is a lot of information that you have either purposely left out of your analysis, don't understand the relevance of, or are merely parroting the non-responses from 'the media' you consume.

The only reason you are questioning its authenticity is that the mainstream media has lied to you about it being questionable. If the laptop belonged to a conservative with ties to Trump, it would have been published by every media site in a second, we would not be talking about "hacked material" because the media would not have cared. 

So yes, even though you are not a "political junkie", you still have been fed enough information by the media to make a conclusion about a laptop, a conclusion which is completely and utterly false. So I will maintain my stance - you have been misled by the media and bought into the lies that they spread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The backstory and provenance on this one is just riduculous but where theres smoke theres fire..maybe..

So ill go into it like i do claims of bigfoot,  ghosts or aliens and hope someone will catch me up.

And not to sound snide i see hunter as a spoiled entitled self centered embarrassment to his family junkie.

Was is proven beyond doubt the laptop was hunters?

Was it proven hunter took said laptop to the blind tech?

Was it proven there was incriminating data on the computer?

Was it proven that incriminating data wasnt added by the blind tech or any other person who might have a vandetta against hunter?

Was it legal for blind tech to make copies of data on a comp and hand it out to people?

Why has this case for the most part vanished from the headlines?

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.