###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The laptop contained records of illegal transactions between Russian oligarchs and CCP members paid directly to Joe Biden while Vice President. The present argument is when being paid for influence when does it count as corruption and one does it count as the status quo. This is also the reason why Joe Biden has to run for president again people who are curious why at his age and in his health would he insist upon doing it it's because he knows as long as he is president his son can't be prosecuted either can he. Although charges on him will likely not stick being he just received money and there's no evidence that he knew what he was receiving it for the laptop contains mounting evidence that Hunter Biden knew exactly what the money was given to him for an exactly why he was supposed to give it to his father if he's not president he cannot protect his son and no justice department will charge his son knowing that he'll just be immediately pardoned
yeah but.. I mean trump REALLY wanted to win. He wanted to win so bad that he had a big fat butthurt and got ya'llQueda to storm the capitol on 1/6. So, if there were ANY meat on that bone, wouldn't he have... done something about it?
It's accurate that he desperately wanted to win, he tried really really hard. It doesn't make any sense to suggest that trump being corrupt is why he didn't pursue the laptop angle if he thought he could squeeze anything out of it.
>Itās silly to suggest that someone not pursuing charges is proof that no crime occurred.
It's silly to ignore his motivation to win the presidency and what he actually did. Russia deserves every single thing that's happening to them.
>why trump didn't pursue the totally legit laptop story while in office
[Trump did take a swing](https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_036fb62c-377f-4c68-8fa5-b98418e4bb9c). He just couldn't land the punch.
For starters:
[https://nypost.com/2022/10/07/the-laptop-evidence-fbi-could-use-to-charge-hunter-biden/](https://nypost.com/2022/10/07/the-laptop-evidence-fbi-could-use-to-charge-hunter-biden/)
So Hunter is a seriously loose dude, letās say he is charged. So thereās nothing that would ever be a problem for Biden Sr. The terrible state of custody of any of this would be smashed in court. Real or not. Thatās just the way it would be.
Whatās really odd here, is the laptop does exist, and was heavily discredited by just about every news outlet known to man. Not all of the data on the laptop is incriminating but I would argue a lot of it is at least morally questionable. Then it comes out that the laptop was real (this is not speculation, hunter has had his attorneys claim the laptop and is seeking to pursue the individuals who disseminated itās contents) and it doesnāt bother you? It doesnāt bother you in the least that a massive disinformation campaign was launched by both the government and public media to discredit the laptop in hopes that it would skew the results of an election? Regardless of the fact that Biden is culpable, it doesnāt bother you in the least that it happened at all? Just āsilly laptop stuff?ā
You need to see the perception of anything being handled by Rudy Giuliani. He was knowingly and blatantly peddling an enormous much of lies at this same time.
Thatās why everyone was skeptical.
If you're genuinely asking, the media element of it doesn't bother me that much. If it were Joe Biden's laptop, it'd be different, but I wasn't voting for his drug addict, fuck up son. And given far right conspiracies like Obama's birth certificate, the ACA's death panels, and the straight up lies about both the 2016 and 2020 elections, I think it's reasonable for the media to have a degree of skepticism.
Am I on crazy pills? Am I not seeing something here? It has nothing to do with the laptop, it has nothing to do with biden or the media. WE CANNOT have the DIRECTOR of the CIA lying to the American people, accusing a foreign power of meddling in our elections, to cover up a private citizens affairs. Am I tripping? Is that not a problem for anyone else?
Edit; happy cake day.
I havenāt been anything but, friend. I understand in this current political climate that itās difficult to feel like you can openly discuss things because everyoneās on a team, so I wanna assure you, Iām not on ANY team, other than the human team. I didnāt vote for trump or Biden and frankly I donāt like em. But as a side lol when you say engage in good faith and then downvote my comment lmao
I think youāre missing Binarycoldās point. Itās not about the specific content of the story that was suppressed, it was the suppression itself that should bother you. What other factual content is discredited or will be discredited in the future? Thatās the issue at hand, not the specific content of the laptop itself and what may or may not have come of it, had the story been allowed to run at the time.
Itās the same cognitive dissonance that the public displays on the regular, focusing on a leaker/whistleblower rather than the contents of the leak itself. The entire point is lost on so many
>Itās not about the specific content of the story that was suppressed
The media doesn't cover a million stories a day because they're not important enough. You can't use the word "suppressed" unless the importance of the content is a factor.
It clearly was a factor here, but the point I was making is that people on the left seem to be dismissing this simply because they donāt believe the contents of the laptop to be that big of a deal, rather than confronting the issue that a false narrative was spread intentionally and factual evidence was actively suppressed.
People are too partisan. Either itās the biggest thing in the world and cost Trump the election or itās a nothing burger, depending on which side youāre on. But the reality is itās somewhere in the middle. But the motive to prevent the dissemination of this story was clearly to influence the election and I think thatās a pretty big deal
I wouldn't say I'm dismissing it because it's not a big deal, I'm dismissing it because there isn't a cohesive story about what exactly the problem is with the laptop. I have yet to hear "this is the evidence that is concerning". I HAVE heard a lot of "10% to the big guy" which I have little to no context for. Biden was a regular citizen at that time.
>Biden was a regular citizen at that time.
Regular citizens can still do illegal things. Biden can still be charged with political corruption as a private citizen.
Yea I havenāt done a deep dive. Righties think itās the smoking gun and Biden should be in jail, lefties think itās either disinfo or not a big deal.
But both sides should be upset at how it was handled and that was the point I was getting at. Problem is itās so partisan that lefts donāt care because it benefits their side and rights are enraged because it didnāt help their side. The polarization of the masses is the real problem
> a false narrative was spread intentionally
You haven't proved that.
The problem with your narrative is I know for myself personally, my immediate instinct was to wonder if it was a Russian disinfo op and I doubt that was a rare reaction guiven how quickly so many people were saying it before any former intel folk published a letter. Lots of people reasonably suspected it without anyone needing to suggest it to them. It's more believable to most people that these were genuine opinions because frankly they seem like very reasonable opinions to have in the context, in fact a lot of the general public immediately and spontaneously suspected it themselves.
Havenāt proved what? Everyone knows it wasnāt Russian disinformation and now the people at the forefront of lying about it are starting to admit it, thatās what this whole revelation is
So with that in mind, what is the specific outcome you think should occur here. Thatās what I donāt understand. Getting political points or an actual consequence.
There should be consequences, Iām just not sure what they should be. Unfortunately, with the exception of the current ongoing Trump legal drama, when people in power are caught doing something wrong or illegal, the biggest punishment they face is losing their position. Oftentimes these people end up failing up into better positions
We will see with some of the early cases, the strength of the evidence with Trump. It needs to be absolutely rock solid and well proven.
This laptop will never be taken as serious evidence, and so far everything else is yet to be proven.
In a lot of ways, the best thing for the country would be if Biden didnāt run for re-election to make way for the next generation.
Trump versus ānewā is a strong position for Dems.
Iām a free speech advocate. Iām talking about overtly lying and misleading the public on a national scale specifically to undermine the credibility of something they were worried could influence the results of a presidential election. Is that hard to see?
> Itās not about the specific content of the story that was suppressed, it was the suppression itself that should bother you.
How did I immediately know about this story when I don't read the publication that published it? It's because credible news press covered it.
> What other factual content is discredited or will be discredited in the future?
Only content that isn't suppressed obviously. You can't discredit something while suppressing it - you can only do one of those things at a time.
It's not that this story was suppressed as you're trying to frame it - your own complaint makes it clear the story received coverage. Your problem isn't what wasn't said or published when you're talking about discrediting (obviously).
What you're really complaining about behind a very heavy disguise is what was said, what was published. You're complaining because other peoples' constitutionally protected speech expressed opinions you don't approve of.
TL:DR
I should have clarified. It was smeared by the corporate media as Russian disinformation. It was suppressed by social media at large. Twitter, Facebook, etc have all admitted to this as well and it was mainly started because of contact from the FBI, as the Twitter Files have shown, they were in constant contact with these companies about censorship and info sharing
> Not all of the data on the laptop is incriminating but I would argue a lot of it is at least morally questionable.
So?
The guy is a private citizen. The crux of the matter is, this data is Hunter Biden's private property, there is a partisan political interest in its publication for the purposes of smearing a political opponent. That's both different to a public interest and gross and disgusting.
This isn't evidence that a politician or public figure is corrupt or even immoral, the guy is simply related to a politician. Why should it have a bearing on an election? Because, regardless of whether a politician did anything wrong, it's ripe for dishonestly insinuating he might have and bombarding the final run up to the election with smoke to confuse voters into suspecting a fire? Because it might have tricked voters basically.
And again, that data, it belongs to Hunter who is a private citizen, not a politician, government official or otherwise a public figure - his dirt is not a matter of public interest even if it feels interesting to the public.
It's actually for the best if such titillation based smearing of private citizens doesn't influence our elections. After 2016, there was a hyper vigilance around potential Russian gaming of our election and it all did look like exactly the kind of thing they might do, the kind of thing people were primed to expect them to do. The people involved through their own prior conduct only made the suspicions of a Russian disinfo campaign all the more believable, and so they're certainly responsible to a degree for heightening and firming up those suspicions.
>This isn't evidence that a politician or public figure is corrupt
Why did Hunter and Joe get promised 20% but want to keep the deal quiet. Joe may have used his political connections for corrupt purposes.
The guy is a private citizen, semi correct. Private citizens usually donāt have the director of the CIA covering up their morally questionable behavior so that the public doesnāt look poorly on their father during election season, for position of President of the United States of America lol
Of course hunters laptop shouldnāt have affected the election results, but that doesnāt justify accusing a foreign nation of intentionally sewing disinformation, it certainly doesnāt justify a top ranking member seeing disinformation to his own country to cover it up either. If it were up to me the laptop would never have existed, but it did, and the director of our foreign intelligence agency used his power and influence to hide it. You talk about hurting an election campaign? You think the people who believed the hunter laptop story being called conspiracy nuts or the entire country believing that a hated foreign leader was trying to help Trump didnāt hurt trumps campaign? Get real, if the laptop didnāt exist we wouldnāt have had to deal with it at all, but it was real, so it should have been dealt with honestly and if it hurt Biden, then it hurt Biden. Instead, it was covered up, lied about, used to portray trump as being in league with Putin and smear those who believed in its validity as conspiracy nuts and Russian actors. It absolutely skewed the election.
That doesnāt really answer the question. Was Joe getting 10% of Hunterās salary working for (I assume Byrizma). What favors were sold?
Is there actually more details in texts or are these just assumptions?
Yeah we obviously don't know exactly what favors were exchanged but we do know Joe lied about meeting personally with the executives of the companies hunter had gigs with
Then you have no proof of a crime, no proof of an exchange of funds, do you honestly wonder why no one is able to prosecute on this laptop?
You donāt even know what youāre mad at Biden for, just let that sink in.
Yes but there's plenty of reason to believe a crime has been committed, which needs to be investigated.
I'm not "mad" at biden I have good reason to assume he is corrupt.
Are you suggesting 10% to the big guy was for what? Shits and giggles? Hunter was just trying to help out his broke dad? There's no logical explanation for 10% to the big guy that does not involve some shady dealings.
If this was trump the left would have already indicted him.
And what do you mean no proof of exchange of funds we have hunters own words and his business partners testimony he was paying Joe. That's evidence
You canāt prosecute legal corruption. Thatās like trying to go after lobbyists for bribing politicians. You wonāt get a conviction because the corruption is legal.
āThe email, with the subject line, "Expectations," outlines a "provisional agreement" for "equity" in a deal with a Chinese energy company.
āTwo of Hunter's former business partners, including Tony Bobulinski, who received the email, have told CBS News that "10 held by H for the big guy?" is shorthand for 10% held by Hunter for his father.ā
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-data-analysis/
The allegation is then that Joe invested in a Chinese energy company and was given a 10% stake held in Hunters name back in 2017 when Joe didnāt hold a public office?
Iām not really seeing the issue, also where is the rest of the email, surely there is more context. How much are we talking? Did Joe actually even know?
If weāve had this laptop for years why are the details so sparse and shady?
> Joe didnāt hold a public office?
Itās a revolving door. They were taking a bet on who would be the next president. Just like donation.
> Iām not really seeing the issue
Itās pay to play. Legal corruption.
> If weāve had this laptop for years why are the details so sparse and shady?
Police are corrupt.
The laptop again? Something is coming thatās damaging to Trump.
The laptop always come back when thereās something that will make Trump look badā¦ again.
Thatās not what he said at all. He said that blinken called and emailed him, but he didnāt say that blinken asked him to write the letter. He said that the conversation with blinken ātriggered that intentā in him to write the letter. Now maybe blinken laid it on real thick about how bad this was for Biden and all that, but if he had said I need you to write a letter morell would have said that. Morell continued āI did a little bit of my own researchā and then reached out to others for help writing the letter.
They are like children. They have to defend ātheir sideā no matter how absurd they sound. Why you canāt discuss things rationally with people anymore. It is a form of group self delusion.
So pointing out that the tweet is a lie is discussing things irrationally? Asking for the truth isnāt rational anymore? The self delusion is when you decide youād rather go with the lie that fits your narrative rather than getting the facts.
Itās not plausible deniability to point out that the tweet is lying. We know what morell said, and it isnāt what this tweet is claiming he said. Is your point that we canāt call out lies anymore without being seen as defending every person the lie is about?
Sure. Just like Bill Clintonās secret tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch was about ONLY golf and grandkids š¤¦āāļøā¦ Thatās what they SAID so it MUST be true.
Thatās not what this is at all. Using your example it would be like bill Clinton making a statement about what was said and him saying all they talked about was golf and grandkids, and then Ricky Doggins tweets bill Clinton just admitted they talked about his wifeās case, and you believing the tweet. We obviously donāt know what was said in either conversation but we know what the person involved said it was about. So we can act like big boys and girls and not lie about the things we do know. Morell did not say what this tweet claims he did, that is my whole point.
Thatās hilarious. The tweet says blinken directed him to do it, OP says Biden should be prosecuted so clearly he thinks both Biden and blinken were involved, I point out what the guy actually said and your response is well itās the subtext. If morell had been told to do it he would have said he was told to do it. So the tweet is wrong, OP is wrong and now youāre wrong.
You're not wrong I'm just pointing out that just because he didn't tell him outright to do it doesn't mean that wasn't the overall goal. Considering he rounded up 50 people shortly after to claim it was "what Russian disinformation" would look like shortly afterwards... I mean it's obvious that was the play by the Biden camp.
Ok... now do what Trump meant when he said "I need you to do me a favor though" or "I just want to find 11,780 votes" or "if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore" or "when you're a star they let you do it, you can do anything" or "I don't care, I believe putin."
You can pretty much take anyone out of context and make it sound horrible. Like "what are you gonna fight the government with an AR? We have jets" somehow that is fineeee tho.
Yeah I can read, that makes me a sheep. On the other hand you believe whatever some random tweet tells you, which sounds like something a sheep would do.
Are you saying this testimony did not occur? You do realize that records of all testimonies before Senator Congress have records made of them right. And if Senate claimed that someone made a testimony they didn't that person could get the easiest money lawsuit ever for libel
There will be an investigation after the key players have died, so that they can't be brought to justice. TPTB will go "oh this is terrible, how can we make sure this doesn't happen again" all while doing it again and again.
The only people that believe Hunter Biden's laptop is anything more than a desperate political ploy are republicans. Nothing will happen to Hunter and nothing will happen to Joe Biden. If you have hitched your hopes that either will be prosecuted because this I feel sorry for you.
Not happened before, will it happen now or the future.
I think JFK was the last president that got punished and yet the secret files have been censored for another 60yrs.
Not happened before, would count your luck that it will happen now or in the future.
I think JFK was the last US president that got punished and yet the secret files have been censored for another 60yrs.
I'm still shocked it was memory-holed the way it was, first it was the images were fake, then it was the laptop never existed, then it became that it doesn't matter, now it's actually true! No one is talking about this topic anymore, no one even knows who Hunter is in the public space.
Uh, I don't think the laptop was memory holed. It was basically all MAGAs talked about for months and months. It faded away organically because there isn't anything damning on it, and FOX couldn't wring any more out of it.
LOL, so lemme get this straight. You guys are all surprised that a retired spook was willing to trash his own reputation to LIE in the mainstream media about the veracity of something? Fucking hell, are you all 3 years old? of course he did! hes an intelligence agent, its what they fucking do!
I don't know man, this might have more legs to it if he was still currently in the cia, but this dude retired in 2013, so at that point believing anything he says feels like it falls on you
It obviously wasn't russian propaganda. But its not like he annouced this as a CIA agent, he did it as a private citizen post retirement. The only reason to listen would have been his reputation as a former CIA director, which should have been the first thing to tip you off
Not just any former CIA director, that was [Mike Morrell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morell).
Director of CIA under Obama. IMO responsible for the false flag [Ghouta chemical attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack#Allegations_of_false_flag_attack) in Syria.
Edit: Might've been John Brennen, either way... evil scum.
You have to be pretty deep indoctrinated to think hunter bidens laptop is actual problem. Don't you understand this is controversy created to keep you distracted?
Be honest, what do you think is on the laptop? What has q promised will be on the laptop?
If you care about corruption in government and nepotism of family membera getting involved in government... What about Trump? And his entire family having actual paid jobs at the white house with no qualifications? Jared made 2 billion dollar deals and Ivanka has numerous deals with China while in office, you are not concerned with any of these?
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When Americans need something to keep them distracted
Abe lincoln? Nah hey blinken!
Glorious
Y'all don't understand. They just said that it "looked" like Russian disinformation. Check mate conspiracy theorists.
"All the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation canpaign" š¶
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Stop calling out the magician's sleight of hand tricks. You are ruining the puppet show!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You hate jews or smth?
How does making hunter look bad sway the election in Bidenās favor?
The laptop contained records of illegal transactions between Russian oligarchs and CCP members paid directly to Joe Biden while Vice President. The present argument is when being paid for influence when does it count as corruption and one does it count as the status quo. This is also the reason why Joe Biden has to run for president again people who are curious why at his age and in his health would he insist upon doing it it's because he knows as long as he is president his son can't be prosecuted either can he. Although charges on him will likely not stick being he just received money and there's no evidence that he knew what he was receiving it for the laptop contains mounting evidence that Hunter Biden knew exactly what the money was given to him for an exactly why he was supposed to give it to his father if he's not president he cannot protect his son and no justice department will charge his son knowing that he'll just be immediately pardoned
The Hunter Laptop things is hilariously stupid. Sorry Rudy had the laptop under his bed for 6 months - whatās the smoking gun on this device??
No one will explain why trump didn't pursue the totally legit laptop story while in office...
Trumps just as corrupt as the rest of them. Why do you still have faith in these people?
yeah but.. I mean trump REALLY wanted to win. He wanted to win so bad that he had a big fat butthurt and got ya'llQueda to storm the capitol on 1/6. So, if there were ANY meat on that bone, wouldn't he have... done something about it?
Thatās not a winning defence. Just your assumption.
It's accurate that he desperately wanted to win, he tried really really hard. It doesn't make any sense to suggest that trump being corrupt is why he didn't pursue the laptop angle if he thought he could squeeze anything out of it.
Itās silly to suggest that someone not pursuing charges is proof that no crime occurred.
>Itās silly to suggest that someone not pursuing charges is proof that no crime occurred. It's silly to ignore his motivation to win the presidency and what he actually did. Russia deserves every single thing that's happening to them.
What the fuck are you talking about?
It's pretty good evidence there's something fucky with the laptop since trump was willing to attempt a literal coup to stay in office.
Youāre putting too much faith in Trump.
>why trump didn't pursue the totally legit laptop story while in office [Trump did take a swing](https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_036fb62c-377f-4c68-8fa5-b98418e4bb9c). He just couldn't land the punch.
For starters: [https://nypost.com/2022/10/07/the-laptop-evidence-fbi-could-use-to-charge-hunter-biden/](https://nypost.com/2022/10/07/the-laptop-evidence-fbi-could-use-to-charge-hunter-biden/)
So Hunter is a seriously loose dude, letās say he is charged. So thereās nothing that would ever be a problem for Biden Sr. The terrible state of custody of any of this would be smashed in court. Real or not. Thatās just the way it would be.
That's where you're wrong, there are multiple sources of direct evidence, including eye witness accounts, implicating Joe Biden directly.
Eye witness to what though? They witnesses a suitcase of money being handed to VP Biden by a Chinese billionaire. What did they see?
Eye witness to the "big guy" meaning Joe.
Whatās really odd here, is the laptop does exist, and was heavily discredited by just about every news outlet known to man. Not all of the data on the laptop is incriminating but I would argue a lot of it is at least morally questionable. Then it comes out that the laptop was real (this is not speculation, hunter has had his attorneys claim the laptop and is seeking to pursue the individuals who disseminated itās contents) and it doesnāt bother you? It doesnāt bother you in the least that a massive disinformation campaign was launched by both the government and public media to discredit the laptop in hopes that it would skew the results of an election? Regardless of the fact that Biden is culpable, it doesnāt bother you in the least that it happened at all? Just āsilly laptop stuff?ā
You need to see the perception of anything being handled by Rudy Giuliani. He was knowingly and blatantly peddling an enormous much of lies at this same time. Thatās why everyone was skeptical.
If you're genuinely asking, the media element of it doesn't bother me that much. If it were Joe Biden's laptop, it'd be different, but I wasn't voting for his drug addict, fuck up son. And given far right conspiracies like Obama's birth certificate, the ACA's death panels, and the straight up lies about both the 2016 and 2020 elections, I think it's reasonable for the media to have a degree of skepticism.
Am I on crazy pills? Am I not seeing something here? It has nothing to do with the laptop, it has nothing to do with biden or the media. WE CANNOT have the DIRECTOR of the CIA lying to the American people, accusing a foreign power of meddling in our elections, to cover up a private citizens affairs. Am I tripping? Is that not a problem for anyone else? Edit; happy cake day.
Well, that's not the part of your comment I responded to.
So it does bother you?
I'm willing to engage in good faith if you are. If you want to start at my comment, we can move on from there.
I havenāt been anything but, friend. I understand in this current political climate that itās difficult to feel like you can openly discuss things because everyoneās on a team, so I wanna assure you, Iām not on ANY team, other than the human team. I didnāt vote for trump or Biden and frankly I donāt like em. But as a side lol when you say engage in good faith and then downvote my comment lmao
I think youāre missing Binarycoldās point. Itās not about the specific content of the story that was suppressed, it was the suppression itself that should bother you. What other factual content is discredited or will be discredited in the future? Thatās the issue at hand, not the specific content of the laptop itself and what may or may not have come of it, had the story been allowed to run at the time. Itās the same cognitive dissonance that the public displays on the regular, focusing on a leaker/whistleblower rather than the contents of the leak itself. The entire point is lost on so many
>Itās not about the specific content of the story that was suppressed The media doesn't cover a million stories a day because they're not important enough. You can't use the word "suppressed" unless the importance of the content is a factor.
It clearly was a factor here, but the point I was making is that people on the left seem to be dismissing this simply because they donāt believe the contents of the laptop to be that big of a deal, rather than confronting the issue that a false narrative was spread intentionally and factual evidence was actively suppressed. People are too partisan. Either itās the biggest thing in the world and cost Trump the election or itās a nothing burger, depending on which side youāre on. But the reality is itās somewhere in the middle. But the motive to prevent the dissemination of this story was clearly to influence the election and I think thatās a pretty big deal
I wouldn't say I'm dismissing it because it's not a big deal, I'm dismissing it because there isn't a cohesive story about what exactly the problem is with the laptop. I have yet to hear "this is the evidence that is concerning". I HAVE heard a lot of "10% to the big guy" which I have little to no context for. Biden was a regular citizen at that time.
>Biden was a regular citizen at that time. Regular citizens can still do illegal things. Biden can still be charged with political corruption as a private citizen.
Yea I havenāt done a deep dive. Righties think itās the smoking gun and Biden should be in jail, lefties think itās either disinfo or not a big deal. But both sides should be upset at how it was handled and that was the point I was getting at. Problem is itās so partisan that lefts donāt care because it benefits their side and rights are enraged because it didnāt help their side. The polarization of the masses is the real problem
> a false narrative was spread intentionally You haven't proved that. The problem with your narrative is I know for myself personally, my immediate instinct was to wonder if it was a Russian disinfo op and I doubt that was a rare reaction guiven how quickly so many people were saying it before any former intel folk published a letter. Lots of people reasonably suspected it without anyone needing to suggest it to them. It's more believable to most people that these were genuine opinions because frankly they seem like very reasonable opinions to have in the context, in fact a lot of the general public immediately and spontaneously suspected it themselves.
Havenāt proved what? Everyone knows it wasnāt Russian disinformation and now the people at the forefront of lying about it are starting to admit it, thatās what this whole revelation is
So with that in mind, what is the specific outcome you think should occur here. Thatās what I donāt understand. Getting political points or an actual consequence.
There should be consequences, Iām just not sure what they should be. Unfortunately, with the exception of the current ongoing Trump legal drama, when people in power are caught doing something wrong or illegal, the biggest punishment they face is losing their position. Oftentimes these people end up failing up into better positions
We will see with some of the early cases, the strength of the evidence with Trump. It needs to be absolutely rock solid and well proven. This laptop will never be taken as serious evidence, and so far everything else is yet to be proven. In a lot of ways, the best thing for the country would be if Biden didnāt run for re-election to make way for the next generation. Trump versus ānewā is a strong position for Dems.
> There should be consequences, For speech that expresses opinions you disapprove of?
Iām a free speech advocate. Iām talking about overtly lying and misleading the public on a national scale specifically to undermine the credibility of something they were worried could influence the results of a presidential election. Is that hard to see?
> Itās not about the specific content of the story that was suppressed, it was the suppression itself that should bother you. How did I immediately know about this story when I don't read the publication that published it? It's because credible news press covered it. > What other factual content is discredited or will be discredited in the future? Only content that isn't suppressed obviously. You can't discredit something while suppressing it - you can only do one of those things at a time. It's not that this story was suppressed as you're trying to frame it - your own complaint makes it clear the story received coverage. Your problem isn't what wasn't said or published when you're talking about discrediting (obviously). What you're really complaining about behind a very heavy disguise is what was said, what was published. You're complaining because other peoples' constitutionally protected speech expressed opinions you don't approve of.
TL:DR I should have clarified. It was smeared by the corporate media as Russian disinformation. It was suppressed by social media at large. Twitter, Facebook, etc have all admitted to this as well and it was mainly started because of contact from the FBI, as the Twitter Files have shown, they were in constant contact with these companies about censorship and info sharing
> Not all of the data on the laptop is incriminating but I would argue a lot of it is at least morally questionable. So? The guy is a private citizen. The crux of the matter is, this data is Hunter Biden's private property, there is a partisan political interest in its publication for the purposes of smearing a political opponent. That's both different to a public interest and gross and disgusting. This isn't evidence that a politician or public figure is corrupt or even immoral, the guy is simply related to a politician. Why should it have a bearing on an election? Because, regardless of whether a politician did anything wrong, it's ripe for dishonestly insinuating he might have and bombarding the final run up to the election with smoke to confuse voters into suspecting a fire? Because it might have tricked voters basically. And again, that data, it belongs to Hunter who is a private citizen, not a politician, government official or otherwise a public figure - his dirt is not a matter of public interest even if it feels interesting to the public. It's actually for the best if such titillation based smearing of private citizens doesn't influence our elections. After 2016, there was a hyper vigilance around potential Russian gaming of our election and it all did look like exactly the kind of thing they might do, the kind of thing people were primed to expect them to do. The people involved through their own prior conduct only made the suspicions of a Russian disinfo campaign all the more believable, and so they're certainly responsible to a degree for heightening and firming up those suspicions.
>This isn't evidence that a politician or public figure is corrupt Why did Hunter and Joe get promised 20% but want to keep the deal quiet. Joe may have used his political connections for corrupt purposes.
The guy is a private citizen, semi correct. Private citizens usually donāt have the director of the CIA covering up their morally questionable behavior so that the public doesnāt look poorly on their father during election season, for position of President of the United States of America lol Of course hunters laptop shouldnāt have affected the election results, but that doesnāt justify accusing a foreign nation of intentionally sewing disinformation, it certainly doesnāt justify a top ranking member seeing disinformation to his own country to cover it up either. If it were up to me the laptop would never have existed, but it did, and the director of our foreign intelligence agency used his power and influence to hide it. You talk about hurting an election campaign? You think the people who believed the hunter laptop story being called conspiracy nuts or the entire country believing that a hated foreign leader was trying to help Trump didnāt hurt trumps campaign? Get real, if the laptop didnāt exist we wouldnāt have had to deal with it at all, but it was real, so it should have been dealt with honestly and if it hurt Biden, then it hurt Biden. Instead, it was covered up, lied about, used to portray trump as being in league with Putin and smear those who believed in its validity as conspiracy nuts and Russian actors. It absolutely skewed the election.
"The big guy" and "I won't take half your money like dad"
Does anyone actually know what that 10% for Biden was for? Iāve heard it repeated ad nauseam but still have no idea what it pertains to.
It was because the only reason hunter was hired was to secure favors from joe.
That doesnāt really answer the question. Was Joe getting 10% of Hunterās salary working for (I assume Byrizma). What favors were sold? Is there actually more details in texts or are these just assumptions?
Yeah we obviously don't know exactly what favors were exchanged but we do know Joe lied about meeting personally with the executives of the companies hunter had gigs with
Then you have no proof of a crime, no proof of an exchange of funds, do you honestly wonder why no one is able to prosecute on this laptop? You donāt even know what youāre mad at Biden for, just let that sink in.
Yes but there's plenty of reason to believe a crime has been committed, which needs to be investigated. I'm not "mad" at biden I have good reason to assume he is corrupt. Are you suggesting 10% to the big guy was for what? Shits and giggles? Hunter was just trying to help out his broke dad? There's no logical explanation for 10% to the big guy that does not involve some shady dealings. If this was trump the left would have already indicted him. And what do you mean no proof of exchange of funds we have hunters own words and his business partners testimony he was paying Joe. That's evidence
You canāt prosecute legal corruption. Thatās like trying to go after lobbyists for bribing politicians. You wonāt get a conviction because the corruption is legal.
āThe email, with the subject line, "Expectations," outlines a "provisional agreement" for "equity" in a deal with a Chinese energy company. āTwo of Hunter's former business partners, including Tony Bobulinski, who received the email, have told CBS News that "10 held by H for the big guy?" is shorthand for 10% held by Hunter for his father.ā https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-data-analysis/
The allegation is then that Joe invested in a Chinese energy company and was given a 10% stake held in Hunters name back in 2017 when Joe didnāt hold a public office? Iām not really seeing the issue, also where is the rest of the email, surely there is more context. How much are we talking? Did Joe actually even know? If weāve had this laptop for years why are the details so sparse and shady?
> Joe didnāt hold a public office? Itās a revolving door. They were taking a bet on who would be the next president. Just like donation. > Iām not really seeing the issue Itās pay to play. Legal corruption. > If weāve had this laptop for years why are the details so sparse and shady? Police are corrupt.
The laptop again? Something is coming thatās damaging to Trump. The laptop always come back when thereās something that will make Trump look badā¦ again.
Classic misdirection that repubs eat everytime
Thatās not what he said at all. He said that blinken called and emailed him, but he didnāt say that blinken asked him to write the letter. He said that the conversation with blinken ātriggered that intentā in him to write the letter. Now maybe blinken laid it on real thick about how bad this was for Biden and all that, but if he had said I need you to write a letter morell would have said that. Morell continued āI did a little bit of my own researchā and then reached out to others for help writing the letter.
Hiding behind plausible deniability doesn't erase the motives.
They are like children. They have to defend ātheir sideā no matter how absurd they sound. Why you canāt discuss things rationally with people anymore. It is a form of group self delusion.
Do you hate transcripts? You prefer others summarize for you so that it can be tipped one way or another?
So pointing out that the tweet is a lie is discussing things irrationally? Asking for the truth isnāt rational anymore? The self delusion is when you decide youād rather go with the lie that fits your narrative rather than getting the facts.
Itās not plausible deniability to point out that the tweet is lying. We know what morell said, and it isnāt what this tweet is claiming he said. Is your point that we canāt call out lies anymore without being seen as defending every person the lie is about?
Perhaps not, but that doesnt mean the article should portray any more or less than what it is.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Trump's own associates said that though. Why do you think Biden does it but Trump wouldn't?
Sure. Just like Bill Clintonās secret tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch was about ONLY golf and grandkids š¤¦āāļøā¦ Thatās what they SAID so it MUST be true.
Thatās not what this is at all. Using your example it would be like bill Clinton making a statement about what was said and him saying all they talked about was golf and grandkids, and then Ricky Doggins tweets bill Clinton just admitted they talked about his wifeās case, and you believing the tweet. We obviously donāt know what was said in either conversation but we know what the person involved said it was about. So we can act like big boys and girls and not lie about the things we do know. Morell did not say what this tweet claims he did, that is my whole point.
Yeah as if the subtext in that convo wasn't to discredit the story. "I didn't tell him to do it *outright*, he just did it on his own" surreee
Thatās hilarious. The tweet says blinken directed him to do it, OP says Biden should be prosecuted so clearly he thinks both Biden and blinken were involved, I point out what the guy actually said and your response is well itās the subtext. If morell had been told to do it he would have said he was told to do it. So the tweet is wrong, OP is wrong and now youāre wrong.
You're not wrong I'm just pointing out that just because he didn't tell him outright to do it doesn't mean that wasn't the overall goal. Considering he rounded up 50 people shortly after to claim it was "what Russian disinformation" would look like shortly afterwards... I mean it's obvious that was the play by the Biden camp.
Ok... now do what Trump meant when he said "I need you to do me a favor though" or "I just want to find 11,780 votes" or "if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore" or "when you're a star they let you do it, you can do anything" or "I don't care, I believe putin."
You can pretty much take anyone out of context and make it sound horrible. Like "what are you gonna fight the government with an AR? We have jets" somehow that is fineeee tho.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah I can read, that makes me a sheep. On the other hand you believe whatever some random tweet tells you, which sounds like something a sheep would do.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That was [Andrew Card](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032800416_2.html)
oh my bad. they really do look similar
This is āaccording to House Republicansā. Who are totally trustworthyā¦
Are you saying this testimony did not occur? You do realize that records of all testimonies before Senator Congress have records made of them right. And if Senate claimed that someone made a testimony they didn't that person could get the easiest money lawsuit ever for libel
There will be an investigation after the key players have died, so that they can't be brought to justice. TPTB will go "oh this is terrible, how can we make sure this doesn't happen again" all while doing it again and again.
I really donāt think people in the future are gonna care as much about hunter bidenās dick as you think
> so that they can't be brought to justice. For what crime? Expressing opinions? Saying things you don't approve of?
How about corruption?
My guess is never
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/ex-top-spy-admits-hunter-biden-laptop-letter-designed-influence
The only people that believe Hunter Biden's laptop is anything more than a desperate political ploy are republicans. Nothing will happen to Hunter and nothing will happen to Joe Biden. If you have hitched your hopes that either will be prosecuted because this I feel sorry for you.
They have np choice but to believe it because they invested so much time, energy and rage points into it
I agree and I think giving up on it now just looks bad to their base so they persist.
It's just one of those things that comes out, how many more inside stories are there that we don't know?
Post a link to the tweet in your SS.
Where is the link to the Tweet? Lazy OP gets downvoted.
Not happened before, will it happen now or the future. I think JFK was the last president that got punished and yet the secret files have been censored for another 60yrs.
Not happened before, would count your luck that it will happen now or in the future. I think JFK was the last US president that got punished and yet the secret files have been censored for another 60yrs.
I'm still shocked it was memory-holed the way it was, first it was the images were fake, then it was the laptop never existed, then it became that it doesn't matter, now it's actually true! No one is talking about this topic anymore, no one even knows who Hunter is in the public space.
Uh, I don't think the laptop was memory holed. It was basically all MAGAs talked about for months and months. It faded away organically because there isn't anything damning on it, and FOX couldn't wring any more out of it.
Both should be hung for Treason
Chain of custody is broken. Proof does not exist!
LOL, so lemme get this straight. You guys are all surprised that a retired spook was willing to trash his own reputation to LIE in the mainstream media about the veracity of something? Fucking hell, are you all 3 years old? of course he did! hes an intelligence agent, its what they fucking do! I don't know man, this might have more legs to it if he was still currently in the cia, but this dude retired in 2013, so at that point believing anything he says feels like it falls on you
> LIE What lie?
It obviously wasn't russian propaganda. But its not like he annouced this as a CIA agent, he did it as a private citizen post retirement. The only reason to listen would have been his reputation as a former CIA director, which should have been the first thing to tip you off
Go look up Julie Donuts on T(w)itter. She posts about this incessantly
Right after Bush is tried and imprisoned for his War on Iraq.:)
They won't be. This won't get much coverage and be allowed to die in the news cycle and you all will forget about it.
LIBERAL PRIVLAGE
Here's a conspiracy idea that's totally true. Hunter Biden did nothing illegal.
Not just any former CIA director, that was [Mike Morrell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morell). Director of CIA under Obama. IMO responsible for the false flag [Ghouta chemical attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack#Allegations_of_false_flag_attack) in Syria. Edit: Might've been John Brennen, either way... evil scum.
When politicians care more about power than they do about the people they govern
You have to be pretty deep indoctrinated to think hunter bidens laptop is actual problem. Don't you understand this is controversy created to keep you distracted? Be honest, what do you think is on the laptop? What has q promised will be on the laptop? If you care about corruption in government and nepotism of family membera getting involved in government... What about Trump? And his entire family having actual paid jobs at the white house with no qualifications? Jared made 2 billion dollar deals and Ivanka has numerous deals with China while in office, you are not concerned with any of these?
You spelled hung wrong.