FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[donquixote99]

I'd love to see an actual example of a valuable 'news story' that was quashed at the behest of the FBI.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I'd love to see an actual example of a valuable 'news story' that was quashed at the behest of the FBI.

How 'bout raising the bar just a bit. How 'bout ANY story, like maybe the fire department rescues a cat from a tree? It doesn't matter the subjective "value" of the story. What business does the US Govt, via the FBI or any government agency or official, get to spike a new story?

Now, sure, there are instances when the gov't asks to delay the publication of a story, or certain details of a story, for valid objective reasons (military operations, police investigations, etc.). But no one is making the claim that national security or FBI investigations would have been hampered by the release of this info.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

What business does the US Govt, via the FBI or any government agency or official, get to spike a new story?

You're making shit up again. Nobody "spiked" the story on the laptop. It showed up in the NYPost on Oct 14 courtesy of a former Hannity (and current Breitbart) staffer who didn't bother to investigate its provenance, chain of custody or verify its contents (something that drove you batshit crazy when BuzzFeed published the dossier). The only thing that occurred is that Twitter did not link to it for 2 days (but Facebook and other social media did). The wingnut uproar caused by Twitter not posting a link to an unverified story gave it more legs that it otherwise would have had (the Barbra Streisand effect). OTOH, David Pecker of the National Enquirer did indeed spike several (true) negative stories about Trump in an illegal scheme that landed Michael Cohen in jail.

No one is making the claim that national security ... would have been hampered by the release of this info.

Oh, really?

More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden son had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...7-579f9b330000

What's funny is that wingnuts like you whine constantly about the MSM releasing the unconfirmed Steele Dossier when Trump was no longer even a candidate (which they didn't do, BTW. BuzzFeed did.) and you whine again that the MSM didn't release the unconfirmed contents of Hunter's laptop (which the WashPost hired experts to confirm, but they couldn't) while Biden was a candidate.

So, which is it? Is it right or wrong for media to publish unverified and salacious stories about presidential candidates (or in Trump's case, a President-elect and not an active candidate), particularly when the source of the laptop story, Rudy Guiliani, was implicated for earlier dirty tricks involving Hunter Biden and was under active investigation for FISA Act violations for his work with pro-Putin Ukrainians while the story itself was viewed by many prominent members of the national security establishment as likely Russian disinformation.

This is all sour grapes because the October surprise that Rudy concocted fizzled (as it also did a year earlier leading to the first impeachment) and which ultimately drove him to another dishonest scheme for which he is currently being disbarred. LOL.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

How 'bout raising the bar just a bit. How 'bout ANY story, like maybe the fire department rescues a cat from a tree? It doesn't matter the subjective "value" of the story. What business does the US Govt, via the FBI or any government agency or official, get to spike a new story?

Now, sure, there are instances when the gov't asks to delay the publication of a story, or certain details of a story, for valid objective reasons (military operations, police investigations, etc.). But no one is making the claim that national security or FBI investigations would have been hampered by the release of this info.

No specifics, then. You all are just outraged at something, but you can't really say what.

And you say 'government spiking a story.' Any evidence of that? I mean, can you show government ordering or compelling such alleged spiking? Asking or suggesting would different, not illegal or outrageous. If the media takes a suggestion, that's voluntary. That's on them, no censorship there.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

How 'bout raising the bar just a bit. How 'bout ANY story, like maybe the fire department rescues a cat from a tree? It doesn't matter the subjective "value" of the story. What business does the US Govt, via the FBI or any government agency or official, get to spike a new story?

Now, sure, there are instances when the gov't asks to delay the publication of a story, or certain details of a story, for valid objective reasons (military operations, police investigations, etc.). But no one is making the claim that national security or FBI investigations would have been hampered by the release of this info.

Where is your proof that FBI was even involved in this let alone ask for this to be squashed? Most of us knew when this came out that this was an attempted smear campaign and if there was one iota of truth to it, the media would have exposed it. After all, even MSM loves a bombshell story and the very fact that they skipped out on this means it was and is a nothingburger.

Btw, if this impacted anyone adversely, where are the lawsuits?

[RickeyM]

You guys are quashing whell's right to be outraged

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

You guys are quashing whell's right to be outraged

Yet the MAGAts were OK when MTG called Biden a piece of shit for nothing he said or did in particular.

Fuck'em Dano.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You're making shit up again. Nobody "spiked" the story on the laptop. It showed up in the NYPost on Oct 14 courtesy of a former Hannity (and current Breitbart) staffer who didn't bother to investigate its provenance, chain of custody or verify its contents (something that drove you batshit crazy when BuzzFeed published the dossier). The only thing that occurred is that Twitter did not link to it for 2 days ....

Uh, no: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/18/t...sis/index.html

Dorsey again apologized for the way Twitter (TWTR) handled a viral article by the New York Post containing unproven allegations about Hunter Biden, saying it was a “mistake” to restrict sharing of the article and that Twitter (TWTR) has since updated its policies.

So, the story was proactively restricted on the platform. They didn't just delay linking to it. Same with Farcebook.

In Twitters case, the guy who led the decision to spike the story was Ex FBI counsel and the Twitter General Counsel James Baker, who happened to work at one time for Comey on the Russia "Collusion" investigation.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Oh, really?

More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden son had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...7-579f9b330000

Really.

By Oct 2020, the US FBI and Intel community had been in possession of the Biden laptop for a year. Its contents has since been authenticated by two news outlets. The FBI, if they were even remotely doing their job, would have authenticated it's contents long before that BS October 2020 letter came out.

To that end, I really hope all 51 of those boneheads end up under oath. Then maybe we'll see what the truth is. https://nypost.com/2022/12/11/mccart...r-biden-story/

[/QUOTE]

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Where is your proof that FBI was even involved in this let alone ask for this to be squashed?

Btw, if this impacted anyone adversely, where are the lawsuits?

It's been admitted to by the FBI, by Twitter employees, by Mark Zuckerberg, by Jenn Psaki, and others. Here's an FBI talking about it under oath in a deposition:

https://abovethelaw.com/uploads/2022...deposition.pdf

As far as lawsuits, asked and answered. One element of this debate is to what extent ,if any, such selective squelching of posts or news items by social media platforms are protected under section 230 of the Communication s Decency Act: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Uh, no: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/18/t...sis/index.html

[I]Dorsey again apologized for the way Twitter (TWTR) handled a viral article by the New York Post ...

So, an article that had already gone viral was "spiked?" Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

To that end, I really hope all 51 of those boneheads end up under oath. Then maybe we'll see what the truth is. https://nypost.com/2022/12/11/mccart...r-biden-story/

Yeh, we can all watch Gym Jordan get to the bottom of this.

If indeed they subpoena these people, all it will do is remind the American people of how grave a threat to national security Trump and his minions are with their ties to Putin and his anti-democratic stooges in Ukraine. Bring it on.

On the off chance that you actually want to understand the Hunter Biden laptop brouhaha (as opposed to the wingnut disinformation you routinely spew here), here's an in-depth article by the founder of TechDirt, a well-known blog focusing on technology's legal challenges and related business and economic policy issues. It's very detailed and highly informative and puts to rest all the breathless bullshit you're spewing.