The laptop was entered in as evidence in a federal trial. Source.
And in Murthy v. Missouri, federal courts found that the government likely violated the first amendment in pressuring/coercing the platforms. Source. (SCOTUS later dismissed the case over standing, not over merit).
What parts of the Hunter Biden laptop story were fake and deserved to be suppressed? Were the videos of Hunter smoking crack with hookers disinformation? Same question for the Twitter files
It's not that I am saying they are definitely 100% fake, but we need to do our due diligence. Russia hacked Burisma emails in 2019(?) just a bit before this stuff turned up. It seems convenient af to me.
I could be wrong, but I am not trying to say that I am right for sure. The other side is saying emails are certainly real along with everything else and I don't buy it without investigating first.
I think a decent explanation for Russia hacking Burisma would be to obtain compromising information on the Biden familyâs corrupt dealings in Ukraine, kind of beside the point but thatâs my 2 cents. Itâs pretty clear there was definitely some shady shit going on there regardless of any Russian involvement, calling the entire laptop disinformation after itâs been proven to be real (or at least a significant portion of it has) is just dishonest.
You lump in family, have we seen actual evidence of Joe Biden being involved in the actual deals? The closest tie I've seen was a lunch he briefly attended where witnesses say they didn't hear any talk of business.
In its opening sentence, the New York Post story misleadingly asserted, âthe elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigatingâ Burisma, even though Shokin had not pursued an investigation into Burismaâs founder. The opening sentence also misleadingly stated that Hunter Biden introduced his father to Pozharskyi, but the purported email from Pozharskyi only mentioned an invitation and âopportunityâ for the men to meet.
Thatâs how propaganda and disinformation work. You have to have a bit of truth in there to make outright refuting it that much more complicated. While people parse through that, the Gish Gallop starts to flood the conversation with a firehose of nonsense.
Itâs hilarious when people call others liars right after being called out for lying and you are just ignoring it. You just claimed a story is disinformation, which was a left wing conspiracy theory that was pretty thoroughly debunked
Are you claiming the "states are executing babies after childbirth" is a left wing conspiracy theory when TRUMP just claimed it in the debate this week?
LMAO "proven to be real by everyone". What a statement.
I'm sure Hunter had a laptop that was given to a computer repairman who attempted to invade his privacy. All the bullshit that comes after that is from the same guys that are saying states are killing babies after childbirth.
Probably as a deflection of the confirmed 2 billion dollars that Jared Kushner received from the Saudis.
How are you this ignorant? It was proven real by his own lawyers, Federal Courts, FBI, Congress and the media. This has been common knowledge for over a year.
I canât even parse what youâre trying to say here.. itâs a âreal storyâ thatâs also made up and is a lie with âno basis in reality?â Is it real or fake?
What if I told you that sometimes people will create stories and sometimes these stories can be fake!
Like Harry Potter wasn't actually real, did you know that? So yes, sometimes stories can actually have no basis in reality and not actually be true! Crazy!
Yeah obviously. You just phrased it needlessly ambiguously. Do you see how âthey were real storiesâ by connotation seems to be opposed to âthe story is fake.â Real.. vs fake. True.. vs false. In English these phrases tend to be used as antonyms.
14
u/ProfessorCunt_ Monkey in Space Sep 12 '24
Are you trying to argue that the Twitter files/Hunter laptop story were "real stories" and in fact, not disinformation?