Hunter Biden Expose is "Fake News"

[JohnDB]

I really don't see why this is even controversial.

You can't sue a radio. You can't sue radio waves...
Radio waves are just a means of broadcasting a signal...a platform to get out a message.

Social Media is supposed to be similar...where individual people (abiding by community decency standards) all have access to a broadcast medium.

The individuals who post something are responsible for their own content.the individuals are the publisher.

If a person publishes untruths about another they are liable for their actions. Not the platform.

Now in a last minute decision to stop being a platform and by being highly selective in open source allowances to have access these media giants have become in essence a publisher themselves.
Their leeway has always previously been around community decency standards. Not anything else. Every kind of conspiracy theory imaginable has been published without regard for accuracy (and still is) by private individuals.
Everything from the "Man-Boy love association" to "Flat Earth" groups to "Death to America" fan clubs are all allowed...but if you are in favor of a particular political party your access has recently been denied.
And these platforms are trying to claim they violated the rules of community decency standards.

What's worse is that many advertisements on these "platforms" is automated... meaning that you upload your ad and pay the money and your advertisement is published to those who might be interested in it.

Currently there's white supremacists, Black Supremacists and other hate groups soliciting their ideologies.

So long as they don't claim to be republicans they get a free pass.

Because of the easy access...robots have been invented to post biased materials on various things. They have gotten rid of the ones promoting Republicans but not the ones promoting Democrats.

That's the problem.
They did it right before an election....that's Federal Election Tampering. That's publishing...they aren't a platform anymore.

 

[Hank77]

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxn...ds/2020/10/918/516/Biden-docs-1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

You can see what you think.

That document doesn't tell me anything. I don't know what his signature looks like and even if I did I wouldn't be able to detect a forgery.

 

[tall73]

That document doesn't tell me anything. I don't know what his signature looks like and even if I did I wouldn't be able to detect a forgery.

Me either. But you asked where the contract was. I noted when I first posted it that Fox News didn't verify it either. But we do have two people in the thread making some determinations from it. One determined it was very steady for an intoxicated individual, and one determined it was scribbles.

Hopefully some experts can verify one way or the other now that the document is out.

 

[Hank77]

Me either. But you asked where the contract was. I noted when I first posted it that Fox News didn't verify it either. But we do have two people in the thread making some determinations from it. One determined it was very steady for an intoxicated individual, and one determined it was scribbles.

Hopefully some experts can verify one way or the other now that the document is out.

Sorry, I do appreciate you posting the document, that is what I asked for.

 

[JohnDB]

The real question isn't about the laptop...

We want to know whether if the emails are true or not...

Sex tapes notwithstanding.

 

[tall73]

Facebook are a massive corporation who can well afford to pay a professional fact checking department. Their job isn't to decide whether they think people should be allowed to hear opinions, their job is to determine whether claims made are unsupported, deliberately misleading or simply factually incorrect. Obviously that's not a precise science, they can't prove for instance that a newspapers anonymous sources are accurate or truthful, that's the newspapers job, but they can do basic checks on supposed facts stated in the piece and ensure that blatant misinformation isn't being peddled.

They have them, but as the article I posted earlier notes they didn't use them before limiting the story. Moreover, they have developed an independent fact check group, because they are trying to avoid the implication that they are making determinations as an editor. But here they limited it before fact checking.

Now Twitter, as I posted above, has noted they made a mistake in doing limiting it. We will see if Facebook follows their lead. Now Twitter will put a note and let people decide. That is the right move. They are a platform, not a publisher.

It likely backfired anyway, because the Streisand effect pushed this further that it would have gone in this news cycle.

 

[tall73]

Sorry, I do appreciate you posting the document, that is what I asked for.

Oh no problem, and I don't really understand why Fox didn't try to find some experts to compare. But they just may not have an example with which to compare.

 

[tall73]

I'd also doubt it would hold any water if it were real. Again, no legal expert, but last I checked, contracts are generally considered invalid if the person signing was known to be in a poor state of mind at the time. Otherwise, you could get someone drunk and sign their life away or do crazy stuff like that.

Yeah, when I worked in insurance claims we couldn't do any statements, etc. with people if we perceived they were impaired. The shop should not have someone sign in that condition. And there are a number of inconsistencies in the story in any case regarding the person who brought in the laptop.

I think the material should not be put out there if it is someone's personal data. But that is a different question than whether it is true.

 

[tall73]

Or if they don't exist, just make them up.

It is possible he, or some others made them up, and the subpoena, and the signed contract, and the correspondence between the shop owner and the FBI, and the photos, and videos, and the confirmation to Fox news from someone on the email chain.

But that is a lot to make up.

The FBI seems to be the ones who could tell us. But who knows if we will hear from the FBI on this one after the criticism last time for talking about investigations ahead of the election.

 

[tall73]

How. Would any of us know what Hunter Biden’s drunk, (but incredibly steady), signature might look like?

We have at least one claimed intelligence community member here on CF. Who knows?

But see, you have already determined it is incredibly steady for a drunk person. So it must have some value. But I mainly posted it because he asked to see it.

 

[tall73]

The stuff about Clinton's e-mails was all over the news at the time.

Yes, and Podesta's. But those were not misinformation. They were actual emails. And the biggest problem was probably that they showed how the Clinton campaign had taken charge of aspects of the DNC before she had been determined to be the nominee, which impacted progressive voters.

Seeing what our politicians are up to may be damaging to those politicians. I don't agree with hacking, but once the documents are out there, they do reveal things.

But I was referencing on Facebook, such as the ads run by Russian sources.

Russian ads on Facebook: A sample gallery

You can see some samples here, and they link to all of them. They covered a variety of topics, and some ran after the election occurred.

The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday released all the ads purchased by accounts tied to Russia's Internet Research Agency -- more than 3,000 ads bought between late 2015 and 2017.

The ads run the gamut, touching on police violence, the second amendment, immigration and the environment. Others appear to be apolitical, sharing individual success stories, extolling support for black-owned businesses or sharing memes.

The article also includes a quote from Schiff indicating they intended to divide Americans with these ads.

 

[SimplyMe]

It is possible he, or some others made them up, and the subpoena, and the signed contract, and the correspondence between the shop owner and the FBI, and the photos, and videos, and the confirmation to Fox news from someone on the email chain.

But that is a lot to make up.

The FBI seems to be the ones who could tell us. But who knows if we will hear from the FBI on this one after the criticism last time for talking about investigations ahead of the election.

From what I've seen from articles that talk to former intelligence operatives, they say that some of the information is likely true. What they seemed to say is that the Russians would use some legitimate pictures that they get from photos shared on the Internet, or even hacked, and combine them with things or photoshop a few. This could easily also apply to the emails; perhaps they hacked his email, or computer, or something and got copies of some of his emails -- which would also be why one of the emails would be verified by the person who received it. However, they then "add" emails, or edit them, to add the "surprises."

They do this type of campaign works best when it has a mixture of truth in. The email would be an example of that -- if they mix in some emails that are real then many people will accept that it proves all the emails must be true; as well as making it harder for the person being targeted to deny it is all false.

I'm also curious what we might learn from the FBI, and when we might hear it.

 

[tall73]

From what I've seen from articles that talk to former intelligence operatives, they say that some of the information is likely true. What they seemed to say is that the Russians would use some legitimate pictures that they get from photos shared on the Internet, or even hacked, and combine them with things or photoshop a few. This could easily also apply to the emails; perhaps they hacked his email, or computer, or something and got copies of some of his emails -- which would also be why one of the emails would be verified by the person who received it. However, they then "add" emails, or edit them, to add the "surprises."

The problem with this is that it was one of the "surprises" that was verified. And that surprise was verified to be linked to Joe as well by the source.

 

[tall73]

Biden campaign surrogate responds to Hunter Biden allegations

1:05 He asks which part is untrue, and whether emails are actually from Hunter Biden. She answers it is unclear to her.

3:43 He asks can anyone say that these emails are inauthentic? I haven't heard anyone say that.

She responds, "Yeah I think that is fair, I don't think anyone is saying they are inauthentic."

 

[tall73]

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost..../6ba4e20e-7806-4e23-92df-e77e3460fe57.#page=1

Dear Chairman Johnson:

This responds to your letter, dated October 17, 2020, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding the authenticity of certain information provided to your Committee, including whether such information is linked to a foreign adversary’s influence operation or is otherwise fraudulent. You also ask several questions about a laptop computer reportedly produced pursuant to a grand jury subpoena.

As you may know, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has advised the American public that, in advance of the 2020 election, a number of nation-states plan to use covert and overt influence measures in an attempt to sway voter preferences and perspectives, sow discord in the United States, and undermine the confidence of Americans in our democratic process. The FBI is the primary investigative agency responsible for the integrity and security of the 2020 election, and as such, we are focused on an array of threats, including the threat of malign foreign influence operations. Regarding the subject of your letter, we have nothing to add at this time to the October 19th public statement by the Director of National Intelligence about the available actionable intelligence. If actionable intelligence is developed, the FBI in consultation with the Intelligence Community will evaluate the need to provide defensive briefings to you and the Committee pursuant to the established notification framework.

Finally, as the FBI advised the Committee in its letter, dated October 5, 2020, consistent with longstanding Department of Justice (Department) policy and practice, the FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation or persons or entities under investigation, including to Members of Congress. As the Inspector General firmly reminded the Department and the FBI in recent years, this policy is designed to preserve the integrity of all Justice Department investigations and the Department’s ability to effectively administer justice without political or other undue outside influences. Therefore, the FBI cannot provide any additional information in response to the enumerated questions in your letter. Thank you for your support of the FBI, its mission, and its people.

Sincerely, Jill C. Tyson Assistant Director Office of Congressional Affairs

 

[Goonie]

One simple issue with the laptops is provenance. Delaware? Is that where Hunter is from, does he have any links there whatsoever?

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, and Podesta's. But those were not misinformation. They were actual emails.

Who leaked them? And how did the leakers get copies of them?

"Russia, if you're listening..."

 

[LaSorcia]

MOD HAT ON

Please stay on topic!

MOD HAT OFF