American Politics from 2019 on

[Joe]

The owners can't censor anything if the journalists themselves aren't complicit. So you've abandoned a valid conspiracy if the owners are indeed ordering the censoring.

Why are you talking about 'abandoned a valid conspiracy'

You sound incoherent.

The censoring is agreed-upon by everyone, such as in the pre-election censoring of the Biden laptop story.

Journalists DID leave over it. Greenwald left the Intercept, specifically over the Intercepts handling of the story.

Of course, the gullible still believe the story pushed by intelligence officials, even if it was clear dishonesty as published.

How was the letter from the former intelligence officials "clear dishonesty as published?"

[JimC]

Because, Joe, the letter dared to disagree with Cunt and others who have fallen down the rabbit hole...

[Cunt]

The owners can't censor anything if the journalists themselves aren't complicit. So you've abandoned a valid conspiracy if the owners are indeed ordering the censoring.

Why are you talking about 'abandoned a valid conspiracy'

You sound incoherent.

The censoring is agreed-upon by everyone, such as in the pre-election censoring of the Biden laptop story.

Journalists DID leave over it. Greenwald left the Intercept, specifically over the Intercepts handling of the story.

Of course, the gullible still believe the story pushed by intelligence officials, even if it was clear dishonesty as published.

How was the letter from the former intelligence officials "clear dishonesty as published?"

The complete lack of claims, if you try to hold any of them responsible for lying.

Or the complete acceptance of their hints, if you want to make exciting and convincing 'news' stories.

You are welcome to search the letter for claims which can be checked, but it sounds like it was written by a lawyer who didn't want to be held to account...

[Joe]

The owners can't censor anything if the journalists themselves aren't complicit. So you've abandoned a valid conspiracy if the owners are indeed ordering the censoring.

Why are you talking about 'abandoned a valid conspiracy'

You sound incoherent.

The censoring is agreed-upon by everyone, such as in the pre-election censoring of the Biden laptop story.

Journalists DID leave over it. Greenwald left the Intercept, specifically over the Intercepts handling of the story.

Of course, the gullible still believe the story pushed by intelligence officials, even if it was clear dishonesty as published.

How was the letter from the former intelligence officials "clear dishonesty as published?"

The complete lack of claims, if you try to hold any of them responsible for lying.

Or the complete acceptance of their hints, if you want to make exciting and convincing 'news' stories.

You are welcome to search the letter for claims which can be checked, but it sounds like it was written by a lawyer who didn't want to be held to account...

I read the letter when it became public, and have reread it several times since. They made a very specific claim according to much of the news media. Politico's headline read, Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say, and a lot of other publications followed suit.

Since you say the letter made no claims, was the media lying?

[Cunt]

The owners can't censor anything if the journalists themselves aren't complicit. So you've abandoned a valid conspiracy if the owners are indeed ordering the censoring.

Why are you talking about 'abandoned a valid conspiracy'

You sound incoherent.

The censoring is agreed-upon by everyone, such as in the pre-election censoring of the Biden laptop story.

Journalists DID leave over it. Greenwald left the Intercept, specifically over the Intercepts handling of the story.

Of course, the gullible still believe the story pushed by intelligence officials, even if it was clear dishonesty as published.

How was the letter from the former intelligence officials "clear dishonesty as published?"

The complete lack of claims, if you try to hold any of them responsible for lying.

Or the complete acceptance of their hints, if you want to make exciting and convincing 'news' stories.

You are welcome to search the letter for claims which can be checked, but it sounds like it was written by a lawyer who didn't want to be held to account...

I read the letter when it became public, and have reread it several times since. They made a very specific claim according to much of the news media. Politico's headline read, Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say, and a lot of other publications followed suit.

Since you say the letter made no claims, was the media lying?

Forget the media echoing what they think they read, what did the letter say, specifically?

Did it make clear claims? Or just the kinds of hints and innuendo that they can backpedal out of no matter what?

[rasetsu]

Not making a claim would be disingenuous, not dishonest.

[Cunt]

Not making a claim would be disingenuous, not dishonest.

If you can't find anything in that letter that could be a lie, then there is likely no truth in it either.

But lots of people acted like it was.

I think those are the people who believe the government has their best interests at heart.

[Joe]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Why are you talking about 'abandoned a valid conspiracy'

You sound incoherent.

The censoring is agreed-upon by everyone, such as in the pre-election censoring of the Biden laptop story.

Journalists DID leave over it. Greenwald left the Intercept, specifically over the Intercepts handling of the story.

Of course, the gullible still believe the story pushed by intelligence officials, even if it was clear dishonesty as published.

How was the letter from the former intelligence officials "clear dishonesty as published?"

The complete lack of claims, if you try to hold any of them responsible for lying.

Or the complete acceptance of their hints, if you want to make exciting and convincing 'news' stories.

You are welcome to search the letter for claims which can be checked, but it sounds like it was written by a lawyer who didn't want to be held to account...

I read the letter when it became public, and have reread it several times since. They made a very specific claim according to much of the news media. Politico's headline read, Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say, and a lot of other publications followed suit.

Since you say the letter made no claims, was the media lying?

Forget the media echoing what they think they read, what did the letter say, specifically?

Did it make clear claims? Or just the kinds of hints and innuendo that they can backpedal out of no matter what?

Yeah, it specifically claimed :

It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US polical scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian informaon operaon.

What's unclear about that?

[rasetsu]

Not making a claim would be disingenuous, not dishonest.

If you can't find anything in that letter that could be a lie, then there is likely no truth in it either.

Even if true, that still wouldn't make it dishonest.

[Cunt]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

How was the letter from the former intelligence officials "clear dishonesty as published?"

The complete lack of claims, if you try to hold any of them responsible for lying.

Or the complete acceptance of their hints, if you want to make exciting and convincing 'news' stories.

You are welcome to search the letter for claims which can be checked, but it sounds like it was written by a lawyer who didn't want to be held to account...

I read the letter when it became public, and have reread it several times since. They made a very specific claim according to much of the news media. Politico's headline read, Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say, and a lot of other publications followed suit.

Since you say the letter made no claims, was the media lying?

Forget the media echoing what they think they read, what did the letter say, specifically?

Did it make clear claims? Or just the kinds of hints and innuendo that they can backpedal out of no matter what?

Yeah, it specifically claimed :

It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US polical scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian informaon operaon.

What's unclear about that?

If that were a lie, it is sufficiently vague that no-one could ever say they were lying.

What clarity do you take from it?

[Cunt]

Not making a claim would be disingenuous, not dishonest.

If you can't find anything in that letter that could be a lie, then there is likely no truth in it either.

Even if true, that still wouldn't make it dishonest.

It doesn't have to be true. As long as all the media and readers get the message.

A wink is as good as a nod, right?

[rasetsu]

Not making a claim would be disingenuous, not dishonest.

If you can't find anything in that letter that could be a lie, then there is likely no truth in it either.

Even if true, that still wouldn't make it dishonest.

It doesn't have to be true. As long as all the media and readers get the message.

A wink is as good as a nod, right?

Maybe, but we were discussing your claim that it was dishonest. Stop changing the subject.

[Cunt]

Not making a claim would be disingenuous, not dishonest.

If you can't find anything in that letter that could be a lie, then there is likely no truth in it either.

Even if true, that still wouldn't make it dishonest.

It doesn't have to be true. As long as all the media and readers get the message.

A wink is as good as a nod, right?

Maybe, but we were discussing your claim that it was dishonest. Stop changing the subject.

lol

Why did they all sign a letter that says nothing prosecutable, but is heavy of hints and innuendo?

Was it to back a candidate, or to try to stop a candidate they hated?

[rasetsu]

If you can't find anything in that letter that could be a lie, then there is likely no truth in it either.

Even if true, that still wouldn't make it dishonest.

It doesn't have to be true. As long as all the media and readers get the message.

A wink is as good as a nod, right?

Maybe, but we were discussing your claim that it was dishonest. Stop changing the subject.

lol

Why did they all sign a letter that says nothing prosecutable, but is heavy of hints and innuendo?

Was it to back a candidate, or to try to stop a candidate they hated?

Since this is your show, you tell me. Just don't forget to bring evidence.

[Joe]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

The complete lack of claims, if you try to hold any of them responsible for lying.

Or the complete acceptance of their hints, if you want to make exciting and convincing 'news' stories.

You are welcome to search the letter for claims which can be checked, but it sounds like it was written by a lawyer who didn't want to be held to account...

I read the letter when it became public, and have reread it several times since. They made a very specific claim according to much of the news media. Politico's headline read, Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say, and a lot of other publications followed suit.

Since you say the letter made no claims, was the media lying?

Forget the media echoing what they think they read, what did the letter say, specifically?

Did it make clear claims? Or just the kinds of hints and innuendo that they can backpedal out of no matter what?

Yeah, it specifically claimed :

It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US polical scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operaon.

What's unclear about that?

If that were a lie, it is sufficiently vague that no-one could ever say they were lying.

What clarity do you take from it?

Really? We can just look up examples of other Russian information operations and see how the laptop thing compares. In fact, the letter makes comparisons to Russian operations in 2016 in order to justify their suspicions.

Such an operation would be consistent with some of the key methods Russia has used in its now multi-year operation to interfere in our democracy – the hacking (via cyber operations) and the dumping of accurate information or the distribution of inaccurate or misinformation. Russia did both of these during the 2016 presidenal election – judgments shared by the US Intelligence Community, the investigation into Russian activities by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the entirety (all Republicans and Democrats) on the current Senate Intelligence Committee.

That does track well with what Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee reported, especially when you consider the Burisma hack the letter mentions, which cybersecurity professionals said used many of the same methods used against the DNC in 2016.

I'd say their suspicions were reasonable, given the history of Russia's previous behavior.