Mark Zuckerberg: FBI Warned Facebook of ‘Russian Propaganda Dump’ Ahead of Hunter Biden Laptop Story

[Grim Reaper 6]

13 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

This thread is a great example of that.  It took less than an hour from the start of this thread for someone to randomly bring Donald Trump into a topic about Hunter Biden, and for no other reason than it made a good chance to take a dig at Trump.

I agree with you,  it feels like the majority of members on this forum go to the whataboutism route far too quickly, from every side of politics. Unfortunately I don't think things are going to change anytime soon. 

I agree this and ever political thread is a good example of that but let’s face it, it’s not new! However it has become endemic since our previous President lost the election! But here is where it goes beyond a pit ally forum membership, and this is absolutely repugnant!

 

[Golden Duck]

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

So it's ok to do whataboutisms when it's "not s political figure"?

You need to re-read my post.  I never said anything like that would reasonably prompt the question you askef.

I, in fact, asked you a question.

[Michelle]

5 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

This thread is a great example of that.  It took less than an hour from the start of this thread for someone to randomly bring Donald Trump into a topic about Hunter Biden, and for no other reason than it made a good chance to take a dig at Trump.

The three or four people that have made a habit of it, for the last six years, have made it acceptable for others. Whataboutism has been their main occupation, but will lecture anyone else for using it.

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

[+OverSword]

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Waiting for the punchline.........

The punchline is some people don't understand that interviewers interview people that an audience is interested in hearing and that Joe Rogan is the most popular interviewer on the planet 

[MGB]

13 hours ago, and-then said:

Before this is all over, you may be amazed at who finally learns to trust the "non-official" sources.  The election is 71 days away and DC is sliding into panic mode because they know their power is about to be hamstrung by the people and there really isn't any legal means to stop it.  

Thibault is on record doing these things.  It makes no difference who brought the FACTS TO LIGHT, does it?  

I personally believe the Democrats will retain the Senate, and the screams of "stolen election" will ring throughout the land from every Republican who lost, as well as from Trump himself.

[el midgetron]

13 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I have an easy question for you, in your opinion we’re the classified documents found at Mar-A-Lago a crime or not?

I don’t know or ever really care if it is a technical violation of a law or not, The office of the President should share the same privileges we’ve seen granted to the Secretary Of State in fairly recent years. Classified documents? Maybe Trump should have just destroyed them and said they were just about mundane personal matters. Case closed. 

A better question is do I think Trump took the documents with criminal intent? To do any of the stupid espionage or selling-of-secrets claims the left is entertaining? No. The people making those sorts of accusations have not only show a consistent bias against Trump but also a consistent track record of being incorrect. 
 

 

[el midgetron]

31 minutes ago, MGB said:

I personally believe the Democrats will retain the Senate, and the screams of "stolen election" will ring throughout the land from every Republican who lost, as well as from Trump himself.

Yeah, In the past few week there has been considerable prediction of a strong red wave resulting in the Democrats losing control of the Senate. However, just recently I’ve been hearing rumblings that the Democrats aren’t in such a bad position after all. 

[Golden Duck]

36 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

I don’t know or ever really care if it is a technical violation of a law or not, The office of the President should share the same privileges we’ve seen granted to the Secretary Of State in fairly recent years. Classified documents? Maybe Trump should have just destroyed them and said they were just about mundane personal matters. Case closed. 

There is a Presidential Records Act that is designed to preserve the historical record of the USA.

Someone who prefers to protect Trump than the history of the USA might agree with your suggested course-of-conduct.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Golden Duck

[el midgetron]

13 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

There is a Presidential Records Act that is designed to preserve the historical record of the USA.

Someone who prefers to protect Trump than the history of the USA might agree with your suggested course-of-conduct.

So do you believe Trump took the documents with criminal intent? He planned sell them on eBay to the highest international bidder? 
 

Or do you just believe the President should be prosecuted for a breach of protocol in handling presidential records? 

[Golden Duck]

10 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

So do you believe Trump took the documents with criminal intent? He planned sell them on eBay to the highest international bidder? 
 

Or do you just believe the President should be prosecuted for a breach of protocol in handling presidential records? 

It's difficult to gauge the faculties of the septuagenarian Trump.  Maybe his handlers are not doing him any favours. 

The PRA is more than protocal, it's law.  Furthermore, information that is a risk to national security cannot have the risk removed by whim.

Reasonable people would reckon the history and national security, of the USA, are more important than one man.  Whether, or not, there was criminal intent doesn't answere a question of criminal negligence.

Trump's admission that "the buck stops with everybody" is perhaps a clue that he is non compos mentis and couldn't be held liable; but, that would mean that he is not fit for high office.

[el midgetron]

8 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It's difficult to gauge the faculties of the septuagenarian Trump.  Maybe his handlers are not doing him any favours. 

The PRA is more than protocal, it's law.  Furthermore, information that is a risk to national security cannot have the risk removed by whim.

Reasonable people would reckon the history and national security, of the USA, are more important than one man.  Whether, or not, there was criminal intent doesn't answere a question of criminal negligence.

Trump's admission that "the buck stops with everybody" is perhaps a clue that he is non compos mentis and couldn't be held liable; but, that would mean that he is not fit for high office.

So you are espionage curious and prosecution willing?

[spartan max2]

2 hours ago, MGB said:

I personally believe the Democrats will retain the Senate, and the screams of "stolen election" will ring throughout the land from every Republican who lost, as well as from Trump himself.

The predictions are slight favor towards dem Senate and favor towards Republicans house. 

Republicans had a stronger chance knt he Senate before roe v Wade was overturned and they picked a couple poor candidates like Oz in PA

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by spartan max2

[Golden Duck]

11 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

So you are espionage curious and prosecution willing?

You suggested the indiscriminate destruction of the public record was a reasonable course-of-conduct.

Protecting Trump is your primary concern above the historical record and security of your nation?

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Golden Duck

[Buzz_Light_Year]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

There is a Presidential Records Act that is designed to preserve the historical record of the USA.

Someone who prefers to protect Trump than the history of the USA might agree with your suggested course-of-conduct.

Quote

There is a Presidential Records Act that is designed to preserve the historical record of the USA.

Doesn't seem to be much of a problem for some.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/10/crisis_at_the_national_archives_137241.html

Quote

And yet the accumulation of recent congressional testimony has made it clear that the Obama administration itself engaged in the wholesale destruction and “loss” of tens of thousands of government records covered under the act as well as the intentional evasion of the government records recording system by engaging in private email exchanges. So far, former President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Lynch and several EPA officials have been named as offenders. The IRS suffered record “losses” as well. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy called it “an unauthorized private communications system for official business for the patent purpose of defeating federal record-keeping and disclosure laws.”

 

[Golden Duck]

Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Doesn't seem to be much of a problem for some.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/10/crisis_at_the_national_archives_137241.html

 

That group of "some" includes you?

[lying]

24 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That group of "some" includes you?

I'm confused.  Are you a "lock her up" proponent and just want the laws equally enforced?

Or is Hillary fine and Trump in need of jail? 

Its not whataboutism, just curious as to if you perceive any difference between the cases. At least the FBI got trumps documents. 

[lying]

17 hours ago, el midgetron said:

The FBI warned Facebook of an imminent “dump” of “Russian propaganda” shortly before the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” story broke, according to Facebook’s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg revealed the bombshell news on his first appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, which was published today, revealing the FBI’s interference in the 2020 election.
 

 

 

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-fbi-warned-facebook-of-russian-propaganda-dump-ahead-of-hunter-biden-laptop-story/

Two scenarios. First scenario the FBI knowing full well the laptop was legit promoted the burying of the story to protect Biden. Second scenario the FBI is completely incompetent an ineffective. 

 

 

I saw the clip in question. It amazes me that the Zuck admitted to election interference so openly

[el midgetron]

31 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You suggested the destruction of documents was reasonable course-of-conduct.

Protecting Trump is your primary concern above the historical record and security of your nation?

It was a reference to the previous destruction of emails subpoenaed by Congress. 

Persecuting Trump is your primary concern, regardless of precedence, criminality or even what’s factual. 
 

National security? Like the nuclear secrets we were told were in the documents? Is there even a known national security threat or are you just indulging is fantastical speculation?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

16 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

I saw the clip in question. It amazes me that the Zuck admitted to election interference so openly

He has a lot of money and literslly knows where a lot of bodies are buried, he’s bullet proof and he knows it. 

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, Knob Oddy said:

I'm confused.  Are you a "lock her up" proponent and just want the laws equally enforced?

Or is Hillary fine and Trump in need of jail? 

Its not whataboutism, just curious as to if you perceive any difference between the cases. At least the FBI got trumps documents. 

You seem to unable to unburden yourself from the yoke of identity politics.  Can you still support the All Blacks while being critical of them?  Likewise, to perceive a breach does not mean bias.

Common Law doesn't have the stature that it it does across the Commonwealth.  Even then across the Commonwealth there is a trend to codify the Common Law.

When it comes to determining a breach each case is judged on its own merits.  That is, a breach is judged against the code, not another persons course-of-conduct.  The example of one road user being singled out from a group of speeding cars can illustrate this concept.

If a rank rank-and-file member of the public service was found to mishandle documents they would likely be sanctioned.

High office carries high expectations.  If HRC breached the FRA then impeachment, and prohibition, from high office would seem appropriate.  If the 115th Congress didn't act, it doesn't mean that it is acceptable for public records and sensitive information to be stored at Mar-a-Lago.

 

 

[Buzz_Light_Year]

54 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That group of "some" includes you?

Nah! I'm referring to the Obama DOJ, FBI, National Archives and a plethora of Democrat politicians that didn't really have an issue with it. Now for some reason it's a big thing and has to be dealt with.

[Golden Duck]

17 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

It was a reference to the previous destruction of emails subpoenaed by Congress. 

Persecuting Trump is your primary concern, regardless of precedence, criminality or even what’s factual. 
 

National security? Like the nuclear secrets we were told were in the documents? Is there even a known national security threat or are you just indulging is fantastical speculation?

What precedence are talking about.  The precedence that you give Trump above the law?

Breaches aren't determined by precedent, or precedents.  Precedents may be used when determining sanction.

Neither you nor I know what is in the material recovered from Mar-a-Lago.   You can't be sure that there is no risk to national security.  Labelling the reports as "fantastical" betrays your projection of wishful thinking.

My primary concern is whether I'll have rissoles or saisages for breakfast.  I just recognise that public records at Mar-a-Lago demonstrates Trump is not fit for high office.

[Golden Duck]

10 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Nah! I'm referring to the Obama DOJ, FBI, National Archives and a plethora of Democrat politicians that didn't really have an issue with it. Now for some reason it's a big thing and has to be dealt with.

The 115th Congress had a Republican majority.  And the Trump DOJ, FBI, and NARA did nothing. 

So, now, because "Hillary did it", you think preseving the national record or being risk averse about national security is not a big thing, right?

It's bewildering why you insist on raising HRC as the standard by which to be judged.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The 115th Congress had a Republican majority.  And the Trump DOJ, FBI, and NARA did nothing. 

So, now, because "Hillary did it", you think preseving the national record or being risk averse about national security is not a big thing, right?

It's bewildering why you insist on raising HRC as the standard by which to be judged.

The decision not to bring charges was under a different administration and a different Congress. The political optics of dredging it back up under Trump would've been seen as a political witch hunt simply because charges had previously not been recommended.

[Golden Duck]

14 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

The decision not to bring charges was under a different administration and a different Congress. The political optics of dredging it back up under Trump would've been seen as a political witch hunt simply because charges had previously not been recommended.

The previous Congress, the 114th, they didn't act.  Which party held majority then?

You're saying the optics of a witch hunt take precedence over preserving records and assessing risk to national security.  That's the standard you are calling for?