Plenty of beef on that nothing burger, but you wont hear about it from the WashPo. Russian corruption, Ukrainian corruption, China corruption, tax fraud, gun felonies, plenty of illegal drugs and (probably) underage hookers and maybe sex trafficking.
We hang people for trafficking with the Russians these days, right? Oh, and that $1B china hedge fund he’s involved with the China state entities he still hasn’t sold, so they’re able to kick him and the Biden family any amount they want in “fees” as long as they deliver weak US policies.
That they let a male compete in a women’s beauty pageant,
that the young girls seemed genuinely happy for this person when they won and not upset that a male was taking something that belonged to one of them,
or that the term beauty pageant has lost all meaning when you go out of your way to make the most objectively ugly person on stage a winner, regardless of gender identity.
It’s no longer a beauty pageant. It’s a, how-woke-can-we-be-as-judges pageant.
Which proves nothing. The image is real, the question is whether it has been tampered with.
I dismiss sources that have a track record of lying. You simply assume your stories are true despite the sources being those liars.
The origin makes no sense. Reality is almost certainly that they took a covert image of it and planted stuff on it. That makes anything interesting on it presumably disinformation.
A fake can start from a real origin. It’s the equivalent of calling something a Photoshop–that’s not saying that there aren’t parts that depict reality, it’s saying the important parts don’t.
What are you talking about? You’re telling me Google having his email on their server being the same email as on his laptop being the same email as on the recipients email means that it’s not true and some image was changed?
I don’t even know how to imagine you think this isn’t proof good enough for criminal court, let alone being worthy of discussion and most people believing it. I guess that’s why the partisans in the FBI had to tell Facebook to suppress it, Twitter suppressed it, all the Legacy Media papers suppressed it… because otherwise the average person would indeed believe Biden and his son are a bunch of amoral grifters selling out the US for millions. And then the Orange Man might get elected, can’t have that.
" Twitter was fined a $150 million civil penalty over the spring for violating a 2011 FTC consent order by using the personal information of users for advertisements from May 2013 to September 2019."
This might not be just about Elon or the $8/month fee.
Which leaves the question of whether any or all of the beef listed by NYPo is authentic, and whether it’s all beef or if some or all of it is pink slime. I.e., WashPo was only able to authenticate a portion of the emails. NYPo does not mention whether the emails they examined were authenticated. Further, they say some of these things “may come back to bite Hunter Biden.” Which also means they may not.
Where did you get the part that Google has his emails on their server? I don’t think the WashPo suggested this. Some of the emails are cryptographically signed and the signatures can be validated, but I don’t think they mentioned that they have access to his online gmail account. Nor that they actually confirmed anything with any person at Google (as opposed to an automatic technological confirmation of email signatures), since without a court order that would be a grave violation of a user’s privacy.
Personally I’m actually drawing a blank on how the emails could be authenticated. If the email is located on the drive, it means it was retrieved from the server into an email application. Most people do not use encrypted or even signed email, since that requires a level of technological sophistication most people do not possess. The only thing I can think of is that emails sent from gmail have SPF and DKIM signatures that verify the sender’s email address. I don’t think there’s anything to validate the contents. So if one has access to a hard drive, they could easily manipulate the contents of an email without breaking the SPF+DKIM signatures. I have no idea how the WaPo experts did what they claimed.
Twitter got in trouble over privacy issues in the past (AFIAK, using recovery numbers for marketing when they said they were only for account recovery) and part of the settlement was a consent decree that among other things required some of their top people to certify that they were behaving properly now. One trigger for that certification was 14 days after a transfer of control. On that very day a bunch of those people suddenly quit.
Does that not say to you that they’re breaking their prior consent decree and the relevant people knew it and thus quit rather than sign?
And note that the checkmark wasn’t about rich twits, it was about avoiding impersonation. He tried to make it about money and found out that’s not how it works. There are now a bunch of things like a drug maker saying insulin is now free–with the blue checkmark saying it’s authentic.
There is plenty of evidence the image is real. There is zero evidence that it wasn’t altered. You don’t seem to understand the difference.
You could authenticate it by looking at the headers, figuring out who was on the other side and asking them. If both sides have the same e-mail that e-mail is authentic. The thing is, this proves nothing about the next e-mail. If there is anything bad in there those e-mails certainly aren’t going to be able to be authenticated.
A blue checkmark used to mean that the entity was who they said they were. The Chief Twit changed that to mean that you simply paid $8–in effect, permitting rampant counterfeiting.
You are correct, that you are once again utterly avoiding the point. Determining whether a statement is true or not has absolutely nothing to do with who makes the statement. Fraudulant accounts can make true statements, and legit accounts can make false statements.
You remain fixated solely on one extremely tiny piece of the misinformation puzzle, which is a piece that only gives a vague hint as to the validity of the information and does nothing to actually confirm or debunk it.
If you can’t verify any information then confirming and debunking becomes meaningless. You have to either start from what you can actually inspect yourself or what trustworthy sources say about something.
But we can’t agree on those so we can’t have a debate, only argue past each other. I haven’t trusted the legacy media for a while, but it was a sad day when more recently I had to put AP and Reuters in the same bucket for anything political or politicized (Ukraine, Covid, etc).
You call us sheep but you’re blindly following your cult leaders and cut out any information source that says anything you disagree with. Isolating from outside information is the hallmark of a cult.
